Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Amy Winehouse


 * 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 Allen3 talk 10:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Statue of Amy Winehouse

 * ... that a statue of Amy Winehouse (pictured) was designed to convey her "attitude and strength, but also give subtle hints of insecurity"?


 * Reviewed: Marmyan

Created by Gareth E Kegg (talk), Ham II (talk), and Another Believer (talk). Nominated by Gareth E Kegg (talk) at 18:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Passes article requirements: created then nominated the next day, long enough, and has no major issues. Passes hook requirements: under 200 characters, interesting, cited in article, and neutrally written. Passes other requirements: QPQ verified, image is available under a free license and is used in the article. Only thing needed is the "(pictured)" notifier. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg If you remove the quotes from the character count it is nowhere near long enough; it's less than 1000 characters. Belle (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that quotes don't count, it was roughly 2000 characters total for the version I reviewed. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think DYKCheck doesn't exclude the quotes unless they are in a blockquote template of some kind, so you have to watch out for that if you are using it to check the length. Belle (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg, Quotes are part of the character count.  It's only block quotes that don't count, and probably because of the formatting, per Supplementary Guidelines: A2: The prose portion of the article, which must be 1500 characters, excludes (in addition to categories listed in the rules) block quotes, headers, images and captions, the "See also" section if any, the references section, Table of Contents, edit buttons and all superscript like [6] and [citation needed]. The regular Rules and Reviewing Guide don't mention quotes at all, except to say they need citations. We've had many articles with quotes in the paragraph body, that were counted as part of the character count.  My goodness, can you imagine cherry picking out inline quotes, and doing a manual deletion from the character count, on every article where there are quotes? — Maile  (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg, the entire "Reception" section is comprised of two quotes; just because they aren't enclosed in a template to tag them as blockquotes doesn't mean they aren't blockquotes. I'm not proposing that we go through every line of an article to remove anything in quotation marks before counting, but when entire sections are converted to "qualifying prose" by adding "X said" in front of a blockquote that's not on. Belle (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try and expand the prose to 1,500 characters. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added some extra text and reduced the quotes and added an extra ref. Victuallers (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg The article is fully referenced, neutral and with no close paraphrasing. Hook is interesting & verified through online sources. QPQ done. Good to go to me FrogmanOfTheSahara (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg This green-tick "Pass" is in doubt.  It is part of a series of 15 (as of this posting) green-tick "Pass" done within minutes of each other several days in September. Please see WT:DYK. — Maile  (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Now long enough; the only remaining problem is that the "Reception" section is comprised of overwhelming positive quotes from her family and friends; if nobody had a bad word to say about it then I suppose this could be considered neutral coverage, but I doubt that is the case (I think it is quite ugly, but don't quote me). Belle (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Belle. Thanks for your work. I looked for negative comments. There is an implied snipe in the Independant review which I have now included but its by no means a negative review. Can you find one of these negative comments that you want to see, as its all positive? I'm concerned that this review will just pause without a solid cause. Victuallers (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are negative reviews but finding them in acceptable sources is hard; this mentions them in passing; and there are other pieces that question or at least note the appropriateness of the break with tradition by the coucil in letting a memorial status be erected before 20 years have passed: eg. this and this (by the ever-delightful Jan Moir]. Belle (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC) THanks BElle I appreciate the work and I will add a bit to show that I appreciate the research but there is still very little negative stuff apart from the Jan Moir piece which is not negative its just vitriol. It reads like a teenager shouting obscenities. Its not worthy of being quoted. However this article is not mine. I think I've done enough, and this article is IMO good enough. I do not intend to do anymore on this article. Victuallers (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Go on then. Belle (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)