Template:Did you know nominations/Sam and Diane

Length

Sam and Diane, Diane Chambers

 * ... that Shelley Long was pregnant during the filming of 1984–85 Season of the television series Cheers? Her character Diane Chambers was not written as pregnant. Therefore, Long was filmed either behind the counter or above her waist to hide her pregnancy.
 * Comment: I have difficulties converting the last two sentences into question formats. I wonder if the hook is written well as is. Also, I wonder if one or two articles deserve to be nominated.

Created/expanded by George Ho (talk). Self nom at 11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this will work, but it's a good opportunity to learn about the DYK process and you'll be able to do better next time. First you should review the Did_you_know. Dates, article and hook lengths, and the wording of the hook are very important.  Reviewing the article histories it wasn't completely clear why Jan. 27 was chosen as the starting date for the expansions - but in any case the prose sections were not expanded by five times, as is required. (Just copy the relevant text into a word processor and use the word count function for a quick and dirty count)
 * While the article Diane Chambers is in the hook, the other article nominated Sam and Diane is not. Also the hook is too long at 253 characters (including spaces).  I'm not sure that having only one sentence is a DYK requirement, but every DYK I remember is.  Very roughly - the hook might look something like this:


 * ... that Shelley Long who played Cheers character Diane Chambers, of the famous duo Sam and Diane, was pregnant in 1984–85 and only filmed behind the counter or above the waist?


 * That's from off the top of my head - so is not a great hook, but it's only 173 characters plus spaces - so there could even be more content. If you have any questions please contact me at my talk page, and I hope you do try DYK again with another article.  Smallbones (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: You've got another big problem and that's all those "naked" refs. You need to clean them up before this goes any further. Because the question was raised, DYK hooks are supposed to be one sentence. Although the rules open the door to the possibility of an exception in very rare cases, I have yet to see one. I only looked at the "Sam and Diane" article and am assuming the other has a similar problem. Marrante (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Those "naked" refs are formatted as MLA. Printable versions separate the title and links in any way, especially if the link and the title are merged together. However, an URL is optional, but I separate them because of "printable version". Is one of those website MLA formats acceptable? --George Ho (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, your refs should look the way they do in the MLA article. The way you have them now, they are called "naked refs" on WP and in order to be approved for DYK, they must be changed so the URLs are not visible. I am not getting involved in this review, I just had a look at one article and saw the refs and made the comment. The reviewer will handle your questions or ask for a second review. Marrante (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading Did you know, there is not one mention about avoiding naked URLs or bare URLs or any citation format, and there is not one mention As long as there is the title of a source, having a naked URL beside the title and date of access and publication doesn't diminish chances to have "Sam and Diane" (or "Diane Chambers") become part of DYK, does it? --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear George Ho, I took the liberty of reformatting all your references in the 2 articles per WP:Citation templates. You will find these templates helpful when formatting your next article. Best, Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I added back the Bibliography section in "Sam and Diane" article because the list of references are too long to care and read; nevertheless, I used the templates. --George Ho (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Conclusion - a very nice, well-written, well-referenced article, but unfortunately does not meet the DYK criteria of five-fold expansion in five days prior to nomination. Moswento (talk &#124; contribs) 13:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)