Template:Did you know nominations/Strange Son

Strange Son

 * ... that Portia Iverson's book about autism Strange Son is slated for a film adaptation?
 * Reviewed: Urocyon progressus

Created by Joe Chill (talk). Self nom at 21:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Long enough article, short enough hook, referenced, sufficiently new. Good to go.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'm not so sure. I have a few concerns about this:
 * A hook stating that a book is being made into a movie is fairly mundane.
 * The source saying it's being made into a movie is from 2005. If there's nothing more recent about this, it may be safe to assume that it's been shelved or dropped.
 * The 2007 source with the Julia Roberts quote merely says that the book was optioned for a movie, which is a very different (lesser) thing. That just means that someone has bought the rights to make a movie, but not that such a movie is going to be made.
 * Blogcritics is not necessarily a reliable source.
 * I can look past the use of Blogcritics, since the article specifically attributes the review, but at the very least, I'd like to see a different hook: one that's both more interesting and has better sourcing. cmadler (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that Portia Iverson's book Strange Son documents how she invited a mother and the mother's autistic son from India to California to help Portia's son communicate? I am going to completely ignore you on the Blogcritics point since I have seen it help save articles in AfD. If you call this mundane, I don't care considering I find it interesting and what is considered interesting to people varies. Joe Chill (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The new hook is better, though it needs rewording, since too many ambiguous pronouns ("she", "her", and "her" referring to two different women) make it hard to parse. But I think the "Film" section of the article still needs to be reworked or removed. cmadler (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I reworded the hook and removed the film section. Joe Chill (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think it's a little awkward, but my concerns have been adequately addressed. cmadler (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to this talk page comment by Crisco 1492, I don't think it's appropriate for me to leave a tick, having not conducted a full point-by-point review. Epeefleche claims to have done that. I had certain specific concerns, which have been addressed; I no longer have any objection to this being promoted, but having not given it a full review for all required points, I'm not approving it myself. cmadler (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I have double checked the article and can confirm that it meets DYK standards. As Cmadler "no longer have any objection to this being promoted", I think this can be promoted. Paraphrasing check looks fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)