Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy Cruickshank


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Ashorocetus (talk &#124; contribs) 02:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Cruickshank

 * ... that MyShowcase.com, co-founded by Nancy Cruickshank (pictured), provides training and flextime employment for over 400 women who wish to develop their own beauty business?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Hart (settler)

Created/expanded by Yoninah (talk). Self-nominated at 10:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Sorry, Yoninah, you'll need to provide a wikilink to the title of the new/expanded article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, WP:DYK is a good resource for the formatting guidelines required of DYK noms. Once you've fixed this, feel free to ping me and I'll continue the review. LavaBaron (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No, let's get a reviewer who's willing to avoid WP:POINT. But if you do insist on continuing, please remember that WP:DYKR asks for complete reviews that result in a write-up either with approval or with a complete list of all the issues found in the course of the review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I'm quite unsure what WP:POINT you think I'm trying to make, but maybe we keep the personal accusations to a minimum in DYK review templates? Probably not the right venue. WP:DYKR requires a wikilink - plain and simple. One was not included - plain and simple. In any case, thanks for adding the wikilink on Yoninah's behalf! With that I'm happy to say this meets L, N, H, and Q. Great job, Yoninah! I'm unsure if it passes on Policy as the hook seems to be a little promotional. I'm going to solicit a second-opinion at the NPOV noticeboard to provide input on that, however, and will close this off based on their feedback. Keep up the awesome work! LavaBaron (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What does the NPOV noticeboard have to do with a DYK hook? Why don't you ask other editors on the DYK talk page? Yoninah (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many great resources we, as Wikipedians, have available. I chose to tap NPOV. Hang in there, I'm sure some input will be forthcoming soon. Thanks for your passion about this article! LavaBaron (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I see the hook as entirely promotional, though it can be hard not to have a promotional hook when when attempts to find a titillating hook in an article about a serial entrepreneur who meets WP:BIO but is otherwise not hugely interesting. I can say with clarity that it would be hard to accept this as an AFC draft with this line in the text, for example, so wonder whether it (the line) ought to appear on the main page, even for the fleeting period a DYK is present. I think a flatter yet interesting hook could be made out of the facts surrounding handbag.com, for example. Fiddle   Faddle  08:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean:
 * ALT1: ... that Nancy Cruickshank (pictured), founder of Handbag.com, encouraged women to send in their business plans and arranged start-up loans through Barclays Bank? Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In a way. But the hook also needs to be intriguing, ideally to show something unexpected. ALT1 is certainly marketing neutral to me, but can you also make it in some manner special? Fiddle   Faddle  20:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that through her start-ups Handbag.com and MyShowcase.com, British entrepreneur Nancy Cruickshank (pictured) empowers other women to become entrepreneurs, too? Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg'm aggreeing with Timtrent on this. Words like "empower [to become] entrepreneurs" sounds like something you'd read in an Amway recruiting pamphlet. And the businesses in question, like "MyShowcase.com" (a dime-a-dozen online makeup retailer with less than 3,000 Facebook followers) are so very marginal they really shouldn't be called-out in a DYK hook. Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure what the solution is here. This just may not be salvageable. LavaBaron (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me make an attempt, though I think a feeble one. The word 'empower' is an emotive word, a power word, and I agree with on that. But I like the way ALT2 has gone, so let me propose a couple:
 * ALT3:... that through her start-ups Handbag.com and MyShowcase.com, British entrepreneur Nancy Cruickshank helps other women to become entrepreneurs, too?
 * ALT4: ... that through her start-ups Handbag.com and MyShowcase.com, British entrepreneur Nancy Cruickshank assists other women to become entrepreneurs, too?
 * I have tried to keep the juxtaposed paradox than an entrepreneur might be selfish yet helps others, and flatten the wording a smidgen Fiddle   Faddle  10:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd probably be okay with that if we had a RS that definitively said she was "helping" women. However, unless I'm reading something incorrectly, this is linked to the website of something called "Inspiring 50" which seems to be a non-notable awards program run by non-notable people. It doesn't indicate it has any physical address, it doesn't list how they choose their winners other than maybe the "Co-Initiator" picks whomever she feels good about, and the "Co-Initiator" is someone called Janneke Niessen who I've never heard of and has an adjusted Twitter following of 1900. We see these kind-of fly-by-night awards programs all the time that are largely short-lived marketing projects by one or two people to generate awareness for their own business. I think to say what she's doing is helping someone we need a RS which "inspiringfifty.com" is not. Noticed this is also sourced to a UK trade rag called "Management Today." I'm ultimately just really uncomfortable promoting to the front page some woman's pyramid marketing scheme. Behind all the fluff, the lady basically just has a small business trying to organize Tupperware parties for makeup ("New starters pay £199 for a kit including £400 of beauty products, promotional materials and a white tablecloth for hosting showcases. They also get training and tech support, and MyShowcase.com handles all of the distribution of products.") - except she's layered on getting them tied-into bank loans so they can pay her the start-up costs. This all just sounds really skeezy, frankly. I'd hate to see this on the front page. LavaBaron (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is a valid insight. I was only looking at the wording, not the underlying material. Fiddle   Faddle  10:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Timtrent - I just edited my comment, apparently there is another source. LavaBaron (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do share your discomfort over promoting MLM scheme operators to the main page. However, I am not sure that discomfort is a valid rationale for not doing so. We do hold and showcase articles on many uncomfortable topics. I think we need to fall back on rules rather than your, or my, personal discomfort. If it passes the rules then it passes. If not, then not. Fiddle   Faddle  10:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg A valid point. I'm going to defer from further review on this one. LavaBaron (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is, I think, a reason to pause deliberations here. The article has been sent to AfD and the discussion, should you choose to join it, is at Articles for deletion/Nancy Cruickshank. If the outcome is to keep the article it may be in the same state as today or in a different shape, and I think we need to return to it then. Fiddle  Faddle  11:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC) To new reviewer: please note, the image is watermarked with the URL of the photog's website. Licensing appears to be clear but the watermark seems violative of the general guide that we should "consider the quality of the image." LavaBaron (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The AfD has been closed as withdraw/keep. This DYK now has no obstacles to a return to reviewing. Fiddle  Faddle  09:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your careful analysis both on this review and on the AFD. I've removed the image from this nomination per your comment. I also prefer "help" over "empower", and have struck the other hooks. Yoninah (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The only way any of us can succeed is by removing all emotional reactions to an article or topic or person who is the subject of an article and to fall back on strict yet simple logic and process. I'm glad none of this has offended you. I am standing too close to this to provide a competent review for DYK now, so that is a task I will stand aside from. Others are far better qualified than I am to perform this task. Fiddle   Faddle  18:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Now that the AFD closed and article issues have been resolved, can we move forward on this nomination? I am relisting User:Timtrent's ALT3 below, and have added a few more alts for consideration:
 * ALT3: ... that through her start-ups Handbag.com and MyShowcase.com, British entrepreneur Nancy Cruickshank helps other women to become entrepreneurs too?
 * ALT5: ... that British entrepreneur Nancy Cruickshank second start-up, Handbag.com, became the number-one fashion and beauty website in the UK, with 1.5 million visits monthly?
 * ALT6: ... that British entrepreneur Nancy Cruickshank sold her second start-up, Handbag.com, for a reported £22 million? Yoninah (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored the picture above after cropping and prissing the image if it is required Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Article is new enough, long enough, well referenced, and appears to follow all wikipedia policies. QPQ is done and no close paraphrasing found. Alt3, Alt5, and Alt6 all are verifiable to online references. I personally prefer Alt5. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)