Template:Did you know nominations/The Execution of Gary Glitter

The Execution of Gary Glitter

 * ... that Gary Glitter's complaint to Ofcom was turned down after he was hanged in a mockumentary shown on British TV in 2009 called The Execution of Gary Glitter?

5x expanded by Chaosdruid (talk). Self nominated at 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article has been suitably 5x expanded and DYK criteria is met. However, where is the QPQ?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Chaosdruid only has two DYK credits, so QPQ isn't necessary. However, I think the proposed hook is kind of clunky, and not very hooky. Sometimes less is more – how about this?
 * ALT1: ... that The Execution of Gary Glitter, broadcast in the UK on Channel 4, led Glitter to complain of unfair treatment?
 * Also, the "awards" section needs a citation. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it left as it is. The main points are that he thought it was unfair he was executed, and OFCOM turned that down; it also opened a debate on national TV about the (then) recent revelation that British people had flip-flopped from against to for the death penalty to displaying a 56% majority which supported hanging.
 * I did toy with many versions before posting this one, shorter ones and ones with different wording; however, this is the one I want to go in DYK.
 * Awards - will get on it ... Chaosdruid (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No joy finding a ref as yet - have emailed the organisers of the festival in question, as the necessary page seems to have disappeared in a 2011 site-revamp. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A short, punchy hook is much more effective at drawing in readers – and leaving some degree of ambiguity makes it all the more compelling. Your proposed hook, in contrast, is cluttered (lots of elements jostling for attention), which makes it hard to take in at a glance, and doesn't draw me in because it gives me all the information I need upfront. If you don't like my ALT, you can propose something else, but it needs to be simpler and more streamlined than the original. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this must just be your personal opinion, "needs to be simpler", when I see these in the queue:
 * that the Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Ordinance was recently passed in India following the assassination of its proponent, Narendra Dabholkar?
 * that since William Cowen sketched Kensington Canal and Brompton Cemetery (pictured), the canal has gone but the cemetery and Cowen are still there?
 * that Paul Ashwood, a researcher at the MIND Institute, has produced evidence that autistic children exhibit abnormal immune responses relative to neurotypical children?
 * that Gary Glitter's complaint to Ofcom was turned down after he was hanged in a mockumentary shown on British TV in 2009 called The Execution of Gary Glitter?
 * As you can see, mine is not as long as one already approved and in the queue, and only a few characters longer than the other two, already approved and in the queue.
 * I would support dropping "in 2009", or possibly dropping "on British TV in 2009", but reluctantly as those already have been approved. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking really about character length, just the intricacy of the sentence structure. "Hookiness" is a DYK criteria, but you're right that this can only be judged subjectively – if you're absolutely convinced I'm wrong, I can step back and let another reviewer take over. But I'll just try one more ALT:
 * ALT2: ... that Gary Glitter lodged a complaint with Ofcom after a 2009 mockumentary portrayed his execution?
 * This is similar in format to the original hook, but more concise, and without the repetition of the name Gary Glitter. I still prefer my ALT1, but I hope this might be a reasonable compromise. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to find compromise :) While ALT2 is getting there, you have left in the '2009' at the expense of the complaint being rejected.
 * ALT3a: ... that Gary Glitter's complaint to Ofcom was turned down after he was hanged in The Execution of Gary Glitter, a British TV mockumentary?
 * ALT3b: ... that after The Execution of Gary Glitter, a 2009 mockumentary showing him being hanged, his complaint to Ofcom was turned down?

Hopefully you can find compromise with one of these. As I said before, the two main issues were the change in public opinion re. hanging, and the turning down of his complaint. I understand that there is a propensity to chop DYKs down to be more "hooky", but I firmly believe that is something best left to journalists of The Sun and Daily Mail. Intelligent people will read past the first five words and, sometimes, it feels like DYK is becoming "headline", rather than "interesting facts that take more than 1 second to read"; similarly, there could also be a case that a scan reader would read the original hook and simply see "Gary Glitter, executed" and click it ...

I have heard nothing back from the email (per "awards"), so I have removed that until a ref can be found Chaosdruid (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My problem here is that "after" implies "because" – so "Glitter's complaint was turned down after he was hanged" confuses the sequence of events. I thought the simplest way around this was to shift the focus to the complaint itself, rather than Ofcom's rejection of it. If the rejection has to be mentioned, how about adding "but the complaint was not upheld" to the end of ALT2? DoctorKubla (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No it does not, you are interpreting it that way - I think you are over-analysing it.
 * I have given you two alternatives, reluctantly, and 3b says "after The Execution of Gary Glitter", the average person reading that will assume that it means 'after the programme was shown', or 'after it was watched' - any possibility of incorrect interpretation is taken away by explaining that it was a TV program - and therefore not a real trial.
 * The DYK mirrors the article, and they are both about 1. the programme, 2. the hanging debate flip-flop by the general public that caused it, 3. Glitters complaint, 4. it's rejection - alt2 removes 1 & 2 and leaves us with a sundry point, that glitter complained about it - shifting the entire focus on to Glitter.
 * I have tried to compromise, but I cannot agree to that massively redacted alt2; it even seems that we are having a similar debate to that caused by the programme and complaint in the first place! Chaosdruid (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to independently review the proposed ALTs but I have concerns about this article. Whilst it id not a biography it certainly falls within the scope of WP:BLP as it contains sensitive material about a living person explicity named throughout, and as such must be rigorously accurate throughout, especially to be featured on the Main Page. The article relies very heavily on directly quoted material, so I started to check the quotes per sources; one was a long excerpt of 683 chars so I reformatted as a block quote, another was confusing as it did not adapt "Mr Gadd" to "he" so I reformatted per WP:MOSQUOTE. More seriously the quote from Screenwipe is attributed to the Radio Times, but only the last part appears in that source, leaving the longer part uncited. I have removed this immediately, it may be reverted if a source is cited. I did try to google a section of the quote but only Wikipedia mirrors resulted. The same problem applied to the Radio Times quote - the second half about "feel grubby" also did not appear in the source; again, I have removed pending a source being cited. I have run out of time for now to check other quotes, but notice there is an uncited one to Trafalgar Square, and as such I believe that this should not run on DYK until all quotes have been correctly cited and checked to source. Further, as the 5x expansion excludes blockquotes (which have to be used if over 40 words/500 chars) and unsourced quotes need to be removed, the eligibility will need to be checked again. Baldy Bill ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 20:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree to put on hold
 * "More seriously the quote from Screenwipe is attributed to the Radio Times, but only the last part appears in that source" - The Radio times ref (ref name=BBCRTStaff) is for the first part of the para, and the last part. The problem with the middle part (Charlie Brooker's screenwipe) was that the middle part is only available within the programme and, as the BBC made it unavailable a year or so ago, the ref can only be sourced from the RT synopsis (which cuts the middle part out), on DVD (I do not have one), or on youtube on the Charlie Brooker channel (00:18). I was reluctant to use the youtube ref as they have been removed before for not being "official" channels. If we can agree to use the youtube Brooker channel then it can be replaced.
 * The Mr Gadd [Glitter] was because the Ofcom document quote uses "Glitter" first, then talks about "Mr Gadd" and did not inform the reader that they were the same person. As I prefer to leave original wording in and add the explanation, I am happy with either version.
 * I will also have a good look, but am away this weekend unfortunately, so should be able to start on Monday. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've returned the full Charlie Brooker quote with an episode citation (I did this a while ago, actually, but forgot to comment here). I've checked all the remaining quotes, and they are all accurate and cited. The Trafalgar Square quote mentioned by Baldy Bill is present in the Independent article cited at the end of the paragraph. Since Chaosdruid and I have reached an impasse, I'm requesting a new reviewer (unless Baldy Bill wants to continue). It's probably best at this stage for whoever takes up the baton to start afresh, and check the article against all the eligibility criteria. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Third review: Firstly, thankyou Chaosdruid and DoctorKubla for your further work. DrK, I'm happy to continue if you are both happy with this.
 * Expansion: Previous 1435chrs, Nomination Day 7648chrs (excluding section later blockquoted and the lists) - passed.
 * Length: as above - passed.
 * Previously featured: No talk page history from update bots - passed.
 * Citations: Present in all paragraphs except plot; all quotes clearly cited (I added a repeat of The Independent cite per DrK's comment above to make it clear both quotes relate to that source), all quotes check to sources - passed.
 * Disputed content: Article history clean post-expansion, last reverted edit was in 2011 and content dispute in 2009, when article was very different to current version - passed
 * BLP compliance: Article is written in neutral tone focusing on the production rather than the character, all BLP-related content reliably sourced - passed
 * Plagiarism: all copied material is marked as quote, fairly used and cited - passed
 * Hooks:
 * Original: format correct, length within limit but (in my opinion) a bit long, supported in article - complies but not commended, struck
 * Alt1: format correct, nice and compact, supported in article but (in my opinion) is not clear enough for a BLP-related article that the execution is fictional - struck
 * Alt2: format correct, nice and compact, supported in article - complies but note that it is strongly opposed by original nominator thereby lacking consensus, struck
 * Alt3a: format correct, length ok, supported in article - complies but in my opinion Alt3b reads better
 * Alt3b: format correct, length ok, supported in article - complies and is best on the hookiness front
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go with a recommendation that Alt3b is chosen of the two above, at discretion of promoter. Baldy Bill  ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 23:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)