Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Williams (dance critic)


 * 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: rejected by Fram (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter Williams (dance critic)

 * ... that ballet critic Peter Williams affected a long cigarette holder (pictured) and his catchphrase was to drawl "awfully pretty"?


 * Reviewed: QPQ – Oran fatwa

5x expanded by Claudeconyers (talk) and Andrew Davidson (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 13:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Changing icon. Close paraphrasing is not an outright rejection of the nomination, but an indication that further editing is needed. Pinging nominator on his talk page. Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even though the nominator was pinged on his talk page, and promised to improve the article, nothing has happened since February 12. So: time has run out, and now it's time to close this. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  15:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are open nominations from January so I was expecting this to have another week or two before it dropped off the end.   This article hasn't been a high priority for me as it wasn't me that introduced the close paraphrase and I didn't make any specific commitment about a date.  Since I was pinged, I had to work a couple of weekends at my paying job to meet a deadline of the end of February, which we only just made.  Please give me a chance to get to this on the coming weekend. Andrew D. (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference between the open nominations from January and this one is the fact that the nominators have responded within a week of someone asking for an action. This page is seriously backlogged, so if all nominators were of the same mentality as you ("Oh well, we can wait two more weeks") and we were going to allow for that, the backlog would be twice as big. I understand life makes you commit to other things too, but those are not always compatible with DYK. A week should be plenty of time to process feedback. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  11:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Since Andrew D. has now asked for more time—belatedly, true—and now knows that a response is always expected at DYK within a week, even if it's to request additional time, I would be inclined to allow the requested extension to this coming weekend, until the end of the day (UTC) on March 12. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg The deadline (as set by BlueMoonset) has lapsed. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  00:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The weekend includes Sunday in my household. I'm getting to it now. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The weekend includes Sunday in my household. I'm getting to it now. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been through it all fairly carefully now, rewriting from the sources while trying to avoid copying them too closely. Thanks for waiting. Andrew D. (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As this is overdue for attention, I'm pinging Tim Riley, who might be able to help, as he has good expertise in this field and the article was started at an editathon that he organised. Andrew D. (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping received: what am I asked to do? Will do if I can.  Tim riley  talk    06:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Tim for responding. The background is that I started this article as a stub at a Royal Opera House editathon.  It stayed like that for a while and then another editor expanded the page.  This fivefold expansion made the article qualify for DYK.  Unfortunately, the detailed review above indicated that some text had been copied too closely from some sources.  I then went through the article, copy-editing and otherwise amending it.  I believe that the close paraphrase issue is now resolved but we need an independent review to confirm this.  So, please could Tim make some spot checks to confirm whether enough has been done.  The main source is the Oxford DNB.  You need an account or library access to view their full article but I suppose Tim has such access.  If not, I can explain how it's done.  If there are any other questions, please just ask.  Thanks again. Andrew D. (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson claimed that he and Claudeconyers had expanded this article 5-fold. This is false: every single edit of the expansion was done by Claudeconyers, nothing by Davidson. Then, it turned out that at least a large chunk of the expansion was a copyvio, making it invalid. (And no, Yoninah, it was not "close paraphrasing", it was direct copying). Leave DYK to editors doing a decent job, and not for seriously problematic articles. Fram (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)