Template:Did you know nominations/Garden hermit
- 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 Allen3 talk 11:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Garden hermit[edit]
- ... that some 18th-century estates employed garden hermits to dwell as living ornaments in purpose-built hermitages and follies?
Created by Stalwart111 (talk). Self nominated at 12:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC).
Interesting topic, but the article currently fails the minimum size (1500 characters) criterion. The article is little more than a stub currently, and since an entire book is dedicated to the subject, the subject is clearly not adequately treated (additional criterion D7) and there obviously exists room for expansion. I would also, suggest re the referencing, to provide page numbers for the books you consulted. Constantine ✍ 14:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- We do require the 1500 characters, but coverage need not comprehensively, or even nominally, track the book's coverage. It just needs to not look like a work in progress, and deal with the subject "adequately", which is a very elastic requirement. Let's hope the nominator can get it up to 1500 characters in time. EEng (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of course coverage should not track the book's, but it does suggest that there is some way to go for the article to be considered close to "adequately" presenting the subject in question. Even if it barely scraped by the 1500 character limit, it still would fail that criterion. Constantine ✍ 15:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but borrowing from WP:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not I think the right benchmark is 'the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be addressed in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects'. EEng (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't expect to see a featured article. But I do expect something that at least makes an effort to cover the main aspects, as you say. Currently it doesn't. Anyhow, the discussion is moot unless and until the article creator expands this. Constantine ✍ 23:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ha ha, thanks for the notes guys. Happy to expand it, though there isn't much beyond, "people kept real-life hermits in their gardens". I didn't want it to become just a list of estates that kept hermits but I'm sure I can find a few hundred more words. St★lwart111 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- The book in question, according to a number of reviews, does get bogged down in providing a list of such estates (about 2/3 of the book apparently). St★lwart111 00:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just looked at the dustjacket blurb and there's plenty of material there. Let's put the nom on hold for a while pending article expansion. We shouldn't lose this one! EEng (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- No problem on my behalf to wait a bit. It's up to the article author. Constantine ✍ 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just looked at the dustjacket blurb and there's plenty of material there. Let's put the nom on hold for a while pending article expansion. We shouldn't lose this one! EEng (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't expect to see a featured article. But I do expect something that at least makes an effort to cover the main aspects, as you say. Currently it doesn't. Anyhow, the discussion is moot unless and until the article creator expands this. Constantine ✍ 23:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but borrowing from WP:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not I think the right benchmark is 'the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be addressed in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects'. EEng (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of course coverage should not track the book's, but it does suggest that there is some way to go for the article to be considered close to "adequately" presenting the subject in question. Even if it barely scraped by the 1500 character limit, it still would fail that criterion. Constantine ✍ 15:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No process. This discussion can just sit while you flesh out the article. But don't drag your feet or people begin to get pissy. EEng (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been two and a half weeks since the above exchange without any action on the article. I'm happy to allow time for expansion, but this is pushing it, especially since the issue was first noted on February 9. User:Stalwart111, shall we say no more than another week to start the expansion, and March 16 as a goal for reaching the minimum size and main-aspect coverage mentioned above? Please report back on your progress. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies BlueMoonset (and others) for my tardiness. I think I've managed to do the expansion work I was hoping to do. I think it now meets minimum length requirements. I will continue to work on it, of course, but hopefully I've ticked the minimum boxes. Thanks, all, for your patience. St★lwart111 12:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. Good to go. Constantine ✍ 15:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- If the reviewer could come back for a second, I think druids are usually a good click-draw:
- ALT1 ... that some 18th-century estates employed garden hermits to dwell as living ornaments, sometimes dressed like druids, in purpose-built hermitages and follies?
- EEng (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. I doubt the nominator will object, so ALT1 is good to go. Constantine ✍ 10:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)