Template:Did you know nominations/The 12 Days of Christine


 * 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The 12 Days of Christine

 * ... that though many critics saw "The 12 Days of Christine", an episode of Inside No. 9, as a representation of a life review, Andrew Billen interpreted it as a story about early-onset Alzheimer's?


 * Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Teluk Penyu Beach. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Created by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 16:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg I'm having trouble reading this sentence: "McDowall noted that, as the episode progresses, Christine's growing unhappiness and increasingly disheveled appearance, it is easy to see the story as about a mental collapse." Would it work if you removed the comma and changed "it is" to "makes it", as in "makes it easy to see the story about a mental collapse"?  Otherwise, the sentence doesn't seem to work. Perhaps you see another way? Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. You're quite right that it was a badly written sentence. I have rephrased to "McDowall noted that, with Christine's growing unhappiness and increasingly disheveled appearance as the episode progresses, it is easy to see the story as about a mental collapse." Josh Milburn (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, J Milburn. I'm also having trouble with this sentence: "Wilson called the ending 'was devastating and unforeseen'." Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was able to fix it by removing "was". Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , the only outstanding issue I see now is the length of your hook (213). which can easily be brought down to spec by removing several words of your choice or linking differently. For example, you could remove "many", "journalist", "a representation", etc.  Or, alternatively, you could remove the name of the episode and simply link " an episode of Inside No. 9" instead.  I suspect there are many ways of shortening the hook. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, upon closer inspection, I did find one other outstanding issue. According to the rules, for the purposes of the hook, "citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient", and sentences offering the fact(s) in question must be directly cited at the end of the sentence.  This means in the "Interpretation" section, citation 7 must be duplicated at the end of "as she lies dying", and citation 10 must be duplicated at the end of "Christine's early-onset Alzheimer's disease". Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Review: article is new, long enough, and within policy (and while it does avoid close paraphrasing by relying on quotes, it relies on them too much in my opinion, and should instead paraphrase more, but that's neither here nor there). Per the above, the hook length needs to be shortened.  While the content is interesting, per the above, the citations do not directly follow the facts.  The hook is neutral and the QPQ checks out.  I would like to pass this hook once the length is shortened and the citations are moved. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review- I have made the citation change you recommended (I consider that a stupid rule, but this isn't the place to argue about that) and trimmed a couple of words from the hook. Concerning the extensive use of quotations- I will be doing more work on the article in the next few weeks, and I'll bear that comment in mind. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Offline source (Billen) accepted AGF.  Hook length OK (192) and citation moved to support the hook.   Article is new, long enough, and within policy.  This DYK is good to go. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)