Template:Did you know nominations/Washington: A Life

Washington: A Life
Created by Cindamuse (talk). Self nom at 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that the book Washington: A Life is based on recently unearthed documentation and materials from the Papers of George Washington, made available by a University of Virginia research project?
 * ALT. 1 ... that historian Ron Chernow based his biography Washington: A Life on recently unearthed documentation and materials from the Papers of George Washington? Cindy ( talk to me ) 17:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This might work for Washington's birthday, celebrated on February 18, 2013. Cindy ( talk to me ) 21:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I did not fully inspect the whole article yet. However, I have problems with the first paragraph of Reception section. It's bloated with unnecessary details, especially for an average reader. How and why names of jurors are relevant? At least the "cash prize" is worth keeping. Also, maybe you can expand its second paragraph a little more, such as adding (something) out of five stars. --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be a little more specific? Not sure what your thoughts are here. Information pertaining to the jurors is considered germane and highly relevant to the nomination and presentation of the Pulitzer Prize Awards, due to the limited number of individuals (3) chosen to select the winner in each category. The jurors who bestow the award go hand in hand with the recipient itself. Presenting an article about a Pulitzer Prize Award winner would be lacking and out of balance without providing information on the specific jurors. As far as reception, professional book reviews are presented in prose and comments, rather than through a star system commonly found on fansites or in the music and restaurant industries, so we would be a bit hard-pressed to pull something out of a hat that doesn't exist. Let me see if I can bring some clarity for you through a quick copyedit. Cindy ( talk to me ) 07:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, take another look and see it it's a bit closer to what you were thinking. In all regards, Happy New Year! Cindy ( talk to me ) 08:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If no one else has objections against names of jurors, then I'll let it slide. I changed info about Geoffrey Ward into what one cited source said. As for the second paragraph of Reception, if you do not want to expand reviews from news media, then... I don't know how else to tell you. --George Ho (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll elaborate more about Reception: if you do not want to expand what The New York Times said, then... be my guest. --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest, George. I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding your intentions here. I'm hoping you can clarify. Do you have any questions or comments that are more in line with the DYK criteria? You mentioned that you will elaborate more. Were you planning to do so? Can you define the term "expand" according to your understanding? I can certainly pull out some quotes, if this is what you are looking for, but expanding the "reception" section by simply adding more reviews is not necessary, since there are several already within the article. I need you to be specific with what you are wanting to see. I cannot add little stars to an article out of thin air. When you said "be my guest"... what are you trying to say? Communication in writing lacks nuances that are often more readily understood in person. It would be helpful if you could be a bit clearer with your thoughts. Thanks again for your help, Cindy ( talk to me ) 13:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "I'll elaborate more about Reception" --> I'll clarify about what I review about Reception. (Doesn't mean that I'll expand.) If I expand Reception, then I'll not be allowed to review this article. Since you won't add stars, maybe you can insert unique, inspiring quotes or paraphrases. Also, forget the "be my guest". --George Ho (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm finding the use of grammar a bit incongruent. You first said that you would elaborate, but failed to do so. Then you said you will "clarify about what [you] review about Reception", which doesn't equate to proper grammar. Again, I'm sorry, but this is very confusing. You mention that I "won't" add stars. Actually, I cannot add stars. (Very different.) To do so would equate to original research. Have you taken a look at the article over the past day? If not, I invite you to do so. The guidelines are above, which clarify expectations. The article is new, long enough, and within policy. George, we all have different ideas about what encompasses a well-written article. That said, this is not FAC or even GAN, but the place to review articles in accordance the DYK nomination guidelines. When all is said and done... do you see a specific issue with the article that is not in compliance with the DYK criteria? I am clearly unable to read between the lines or decipher your code, so if you could ask questions or make suggestions that are more in line with the DYK reviewing guidelines, I would welcome the conversation. Please note that I have added an alternate hook. Outside of that, just let me know when it is good to go. Thanks again, Cindy ( talk to me ) 17:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png I apologize for my terrible grammar in past posts. I'll simplify things in this message in order to make sense. All sources are reliable. Reception section was expanded as needed, even though this nomination is not for Featured or Good Article status. ALT1 I would prefer. Prior revision passes 1,500-character minimum; so does the current one. If quotes do not violate copyrights, or if no condensing or paraphrasing quotes is needed, then this nomination is good to go. --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Changed from checkmark to red icon.


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have similar troubles to the ones George has attempted to express. To my eye, the first Reception paragraph has excessive detail about the Pulitzer: contrary to the contention above, the jurors and the presenter are simply not necessary, just the fact of the Pulitzer award and year given, and perhaps the cash prize because of the fact of the other prize later in the paragraph. The rest of the Reception section strikes me as problematic because it is almost entirely quotes from reviews, plus overlong credentials for the reviewers: a wikilinked name and publication are sufficient, and most of the quotes should be paraphrased. Almost two-thirds of these paragraphs are quoted material, leaving a mere 810 characters of 2371 outside of the quotes, and a good portion of these remaining are the extended reviewer descriptions. You need to summarize reviews—put the bulk of what you wish to convey in your own words—and quote far less than you do. There's also a bit of WP:PEACOCK in the wording, such as the description of "groundbreaking" attributed to the Pulitzer jurors in the intro, which word is not used at the referenced Pulitzer URL. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, it's my fault: I encouraged Cindy into expanding reviews because the second paragraph of Reception in prior revision was too short, and the fact that this book is reviewed, as simply explained, is too dull without knowing what reviewers said and/or rated. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. The term "groundbreaking" was attributed to the incorrect page/tab at the Pulitzer Prize website, so thanks for catching that. That said, while I thought the statement was made by the jury, it was actually made by the publisher of the book, so I edited the lead and removed the publisher's assessment altogether. Again, thanks for catching that. I've gone back and edited the reception section again. Keep in mind that "need" and "necessary" are subjective terms, based on a personal opinion. Accordingly, while I've condensed the content, I've retained the names of the members of the jury and presenter of the award in order to provide a thorough and balanced presentation of the subject of the article. I've edited the reception section, resulting in a hybrid of the original version and the most recent expanded one that included quotes pulled out from the reviews. I've focused on reviews by:
 * two different journalists of the New York Times;
 * opposing reviews by a journalist from the Washington Post and another from the Washington Times; and
 * three reviews for The Daily News, NPR, and The New York Review of Books, that showed consistency overall, recognizing the volume of work that went in to the book, utilizing the Papers of George Washington, resulting in a comprehensive analysis of the life of Washington that up until this time had been lacking in previously published biographies.
 * As a side note, I also prefer the concise and shorter version of the hook in ALT1. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Cindy ( talk to me ) 08:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I hope the current version fixes everything it needs. Much much improvement. As said before: ALT1 I prefer, sources are reliable as checked, and well-informed. Juror names are out, and reviews are paraphrased. --George Ho (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * George, as someone who builds prep sets, I have to say that seeing someone using the green approval tick/icon—which means "this is approved for promotion"—together with the words "I hope this fixes everything it needs" gives me no confidence at all. Either it does fix what's needed, in which case an approval is appropriate, or it doesn't, in which case approval and icon should be withheld until it is. If you don't feel you can determine this, then please have someone else come in and do so. A quick look shows that while the reviews were paraphrased, the juror names are not "out" but remain as Cindy said they did; what was removed was some of the description of their credentials.


 * As it happens, while you were writing the above, I was doing some further editing on the article. The notion that the presenter of an award is necessary for a "thorough and balanced presentation" simply does not hold water, in my opinion: it's like saying you have to list the presenter of an Academy Award for the same reason. I've removed him and further condensed that first paragraph, and also done some copyediting of the newly paraphrased reviews. Cindy's edits strike me also as significant improvements, and I think the article with its latest changes satisfies DYK requirements. I have struck the original hook, as ALT1 is preferred by both Cindy and you, and let the approval icon stand. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sincere thanks for the copyedits you made to the article. Respectfully, I don't agree with removing the presenter, but it's not a deal breaker. Just makes me laugh. Clearly you don't understand the scope of the Pulitzer Prize Awards or recognize the significant role of the presenter. You may be interested to know that the publishing industry tends to shake its head when people attempt to equate or compare the Pulitzer Prize Awards to the Academy Awards in any manner. Unlike the Academy Awards, the Pulitzers do not invite numerous individuals to present the awards. The sole presenter each year is the President of Columbia University, who also oversees the Pulitzer Prize Board. Really, it doesn't compute and merely serves to reveal when people lack knowledge of the industry overall. And in this particular case, it results in an article lacking thorough information of the award from the viewpoint of the publishing industry, while likely missing the mark in meeting the expectations of knowledgeable readers of article. While you maintain that the notion supporting the significance of the presenter "doesn't hold water", your lack of understanding of the awards and the edits made based on your opinion, equates to "holes in the boat" of this article. That said, thanks to both of you for participating and sharing your thoughts. Your work is appreciated. Best regards, Cindy ( talk to me ) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cindy, I appreciate the thanks. As for the Pulitzers, you've actually proven my point, though you didn't mean to. If the presenter is always the President of Columbia University, then mentioning it is not notable either, certainly not in an individual award, since it will always be the president. It could well be appropriate in an article about the Pulitzers and how they work, I would imagine, but not here. The Wikipedia article on an individual book is simply not the place for detailed information about the publishing industry's inner workings when it comes to awards. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can respect your train of thought here. That said, while the presenter is always the President of Columbia University, it's not always the same person, due to turnover in administration. Rather than sending readers off to research who the President was in a particular year, in order to determine the presenter of the awards in a particular year, the lack of thoroughness merely fails to meet the expectations of readers. That said, don't get me wrong on this. I really am a rather pleasant person when I've had enough sleep. ;) I enjoy the dialogue and collaboration of Wikipedia. We can agree to disagree on this. It's not a deal breaker. Disappointing, but something I can work with. In all regards, I have appreciated your willingness to take the time to step in and assist with this nomination. Again, your work is appreciated. Happy New Year and best regards, Cindy ( talk to me ) 20:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg My second (or third) review: Bluemoonset's edits should make this nomination okay to pass. --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cindy, you proposed up top that this be saved for Presidents Day (February 18 this year); Washington's actual birthday is February 22, which never does coincide with Presidents Day (third Monday in February). Both days are outside of the six-week window that is the usual maximum for special occasion holds, so I was wondering if we should try for an exception of an extra week to ten days beyond the six weeks, or just let it run normally in the next several days? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)