Template:Did you know nominations/e-baby


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

e-baby

 * ... that Jane Caferella's play e-baby (Ensemble Theatre performance pictured) is "a very rare theatrical beast" as it explores the visceral experience of two women joined by gestational surrogacy?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Scott Simplot
 * Comment: This review by Fiona Cameron supports the hook, describing e-baby as "a very rare theatrical beast: a two-handed play by women, starring women and about issues that affect women viscerally. Indeed, another such production doesn't readily spring to mind ... [and] the men in the characters' lives, well, they were so peripheral as to be almost incidental ... [in this] play about hope and trust and how two women who would otherwise never have crossed paths are connected by a surrogate pregnancy." An alternative image which could be used is File:Ensemble Theatre production of e-baby - photo 1.jpg, but I think the one shown here is preferable.

Created by EdChem (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC).


 * QPQ requirement not met. Though the claimed QPQ was ultimately withdrawn, EdChem did not address copyvio in his review before it was withdrawn, one of the DYK criteria. The QPQ review was, therefore, inadequate for claiming QPQ credit. LavaBaron (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reviewer: Please see this discussion for the context leading LavaBaron to make the above comment. EdChem (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, please do. Per that discussion the community decided that a review that doesn't address each of the five criteria doesn't meet QPQ requirements. Note that the QPQ being claimed here didn't address copyvio (among others). This is also widely supported by other recent QPQs that have been rejected, such as this one which was blocked as an acceptable QPQ because it didn't "explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met". LavaBaron (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I have now reviewed the article. It is new enough as of the date of the nomination. It is long enough. The hook isn't that interesting, however, it's enough to pass the general interest requirement, even though it's unclear whether the requirement still exists or it's been recently repealed by executive fiat. The image is rights-free as per a OTRS tag. Both the article and hook are NPOV. The hook is not too long. Earwig finds no evidence of copyvio except for several passages which are direct quotes and, therefore, acceptable as cited. The sourcing for the hook is acceptable. An adequate QPQ has not been done. LavaBaron (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron's rejection of the QPQ is absurd; I'm ticking here based on the remainder of his review (for which he should feel free to claim the QPQ). I should add that I believe the hook qualifies as intriguing/interesting. This kind of nonsense is symptomatic of a project in serious, serious trouble and unable to right itself.  E Eng  00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to Promoter: Both myself and Pppery have registered an objection here to EdChem's QPQ review being credited. If it's promoted anyway, kindly ping me so we're clear that addressing each of the major DYK criteria in a review isn't required to claim QPQ and we can get IndianBio's excellent nomination out of limbo where it's been held up for lack of a full review in the QPQ. He is, reasonably, confused about what he's supposed to do next, and so are I and others. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)