Template:Did you know nominations/Travolta dress

Travolta dress

 * ... that the Travolta dress (pictured), one of Diana, Princess of Wales's most famous dresses, named after actor John Travolta, was auctioned off for £240,000 in 2013?
 * Reviewed: Khorashan of Kartli

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self nominated at 23:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC).


 * I suggest saving this for 29 July, the anniversary of her marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * New article and long enough. Looks good, just like the dress. But some corrections needed. I don't think Diana wore the dress "to dance with him". Its more like she wore it and she danced with him. Please rephrase that. Was 1985's US visit really her "first overseas tour"? Or was it her first tour as Princess of Wales? And i don't understand what a "former uncle" is. Also, i would suggest keeping it for 31 August, her death anniversary. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 07:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know about the phrasing. The source used that wording and I didn't question it, as English is not my first language. I'll rephrase it. You are right about the tour. For some reason, I thought I had seen that information in the article about Diana. A "former uncle" is the ex-husband of one's mother's sister. Should this connection be ignored? There is already one Diana-related hook reserved for 31 August. Two might be a bit too much. Or not? Surtsicna (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay! Never mind then. Its good now. The "former uncle" is really complicated. I don't know if they are usually called so. I suppose a person would remain uncle even after the marriage terminates or whatever. Better to just skip all that and simple call him uncle. We are currently promoting 2 sets of hooks each day and each set can have one Diana related hook. Plus i suppose if this gets promoted with the picture, it will have more hits. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would certainly have more hits if featured on 31 August but I doubt both hooks would be promoted with images. One would more than likely be obscured. I suggest leaving the final decision to the promoter. Surtsicna (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Sure! Let the promoter decide. Good to go for now. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg The phrase "one of ... most famous dresses" is not supported by an inline source citation after the relevant sentence in the body of the article, and needs to be. Also, I think the words "the Hollywood" could be safely deleted from the hook. Regarding the date, if you have two Diana hooks on the same date, you're pretty much guaranteed that one won't get the lead slot. If you use the two days, then both have a shot at running with a picture. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. I always forget that the inline citation has to come right after the relevant sentence. The citation's there now. Anyway, you are right and that's why I think this one should be featured on 29 July and the other one on 31 August. Both images are of very high quality and both deserve to be featured, or to at least have a chance to be featured. Surtsicna (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol voting keep.svg Restoring approval, but because a major hook source is offline, using the AGF tick. Thanks for adding the requisite cite. I've also removed "the Hollywood" from the hook; "the" is not necessary in this context, and "Hollywood" is not even in the article. I've moved this to July 29 in the special occasion holding area per author preference. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Template:Did you know nominations/Victor Edelstein might be relevant here - maybe the two DYKs could be merged into a relevant double hook? Mabalu (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely they should be made into a double hook: having two hooks about the same dress is overkill, and two special occasion hooks about the same dress beyond overkill. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly. How about:
 * ALT1: ... that Victor Edelstein designed the £240,000 John Travolta dress (pictured), one of Diana, Princess of Wales's most famous dresses?
 * Yes, the dress is also referred to as John Travolta dress. I've added the "alternative" name to the article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how only suggesting an alt hook is considered a QPQ review. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be? All requirements were met except for the one about the hook content and that should have been noted. Suggesting an alternative hook was only an attempt to help out; that itself was not required of me. If necessary, I will do a full review of the already reviewed article. Surtsicna (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There was already a previous reviewer who assessed the content of the article already. Quid pro quo means that something of equal value is exchanged for something else of equal value. Suggesting a hook is not equal to a full scale review of this article. It is called a QPQ review and you just said that it was already reviewed.SL93 (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The first review was obviously not a "full scale review" as the hook itself was not properly reviewed. What do you think, BlueMoonset? Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The hook being properly reviewed is only based on what the reviewer thinks of it. The reviewer added on to my hook so they obviously thought that it was fine. Irregardless, yours was still not a proper review. SL93 (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And the reviewer of this nomination obviously thought I had done my QPQ. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There is always the possibility that the reviewer missed it on accident. Even if he did believe that, any editor can raise concerns at the nomination page. I don't see how suggesting an alt hook is of equal value to a full review. That is like saying that airing up a tire is an equal exchange for someone fixing the entire car. I would prefer for BlueMoonset to revisit this discussion. SL93 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC) I've just reviewed another article to avoid any further complications. I don't think it was necessary, but it's easier than arguing against nitpicking. Surtsicna (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused here but I'm guessing SL93 is trying to make the point that Victor Edelstein has not yet been properly reviewed and passed? Mabalu (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The review at Template:Did you know nominations/Khorashan of Kartli was not a proper review by Surtsicna. The editor can call it nitpicking because I don't really care, the QPQ review is a rule that was put in place to help further the amount of reviews. SL93 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * How about a little more context that general readers of MainPage would find interesting:
 * ALT2: ... that Victor Edelstein designed the blue velvet dress worn by Princess Diana (pictured) when she danced with John Travolta to the music of Saturday Night Fever in the White House in 1985?
 * I think this hook would be good for either July 29th or August 31st. If we don't want two Diana hooks on the same day, then I recommend promoting the other nom first, i.e. using the secret marriage hook on the July 29th wedding anniversary. (This is not what User:Surtsicna wants, though.) --PFHLai (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I must object to referring to her as "Princess Diana". That has been discussed at Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales. "Diana, Princess of Wales" is accurate. I would also like the dress to be referred to as the Travolta dress. I believe readers would be more interested to read about a dress named after John Travolta than about a blue velvet dress. The word "pictured" should refer to the dress, not to the Princess. That would lead to:
 * ALT3: that Victor Edelstein designed the Travolta dress (pictured), worn by Diana, Princess of Wales, when she danced with John Travolta to the music of Saturday Night Fever in the White House in 1985?
 * However, it appears that the article about Victor Edelstein and ALT3 won't be reviewed in time. Would you review it, PFHLai? Also, would it be good to mention all those thousands of pounds, as in ALT1? People would be attracted to reading about something that expensive. Surtsicna (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)