Template:Did you know nominations/George Herms

The following discussion 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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

George Herms[edit]

(

)

... that a drifter asking "There's the makers, the takers, and the fakers. Which will you be?" triggered George Herms to pursue life as an artist?

Reviewed: not a self nom

Created by Bgv123 (talk). Nominated by Chris troutman (talk) at 07:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

A good article and a new contribution; Herms is certainly notable. While it appears to be well beyond the minimum length, most of the content is actually a list of shows; I think the article is nonetheless long enough. It is adequately cited, but see my comments below. I like the hook, although the word "triggered" seems off. The hook doesn't appear in the lede, but in the first paragraph of the article proper; I think that is a good decision in this case. The article has a long prose listing of the shows that have featured Herms' art; this material is not very readable. I think it should be replaced by lists or tables. The article needs some additional cleanup. Terms like "UC Davis" and "UCLA" are first used without definition or wikilinks; these should be modified to be readable by non-US readers. The inline citations have some deficiencies, including repeated citations that I've fixed to some extent. Publication dates are missing for several; I've fixed one of these. One important source ("Secret Archive") isn't available online, but I'd accept in good faith. There are better ways to manage the repetitive citation of this source; I'll add a note about that directly to the article itself. Easchiff (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's got a tick, but you've said a section is unreadable. Could we clarify this article's status? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Unreadable was too strong. I've revised my comment above to say "not very readable". I think it's acceptable for DYK in its present state, but it would be desirable to clean up the referencing. There are about a dozen full citations (to Larsen's essay) that repeat everything except page numbers. Easchiff (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the citations myself. I think the article is fine for DYK now. Easchiff (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)