Template:Did you know nominations/David Tod Roy

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 PFHLai (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

David Tod Roy

(

)

... that David Tod Roy, the son of Presbyterian missionaries to China, was the first to translate the unexpurgated text of the Ming dynasty erotic novel Jin Ping Mei into English?

QPQ Review: Javare Gowda

Created/expanded by CWH (talk). Self-nominated at 02:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC).

Note: I linked "unexpurgated" and put the Chinese title in italics.

New Enough
Long enough
Interesting hook
Reliable sources
No copyright violations.
I don't think it hits the mark on "Well written", there are phrases where it jumps around like something was pasted into other text. The article will need to go through some Copyediting to be acceptable, especially the "early life" section is messy.

The copyright violation tool hits on a large degree of quoting, I don't know when too much it too much but when I read it I felt it was appropriate to provide context.

- @CWH: hopefully you can addess the copyediting issues? MPJ-US 23:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and helpful review, @MPJ-DK: and for the suggestions. I will try to smooth out the copyediting issues sometime tomorrow, even though I do not see that they or "well written" are required for DYK.ch (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Now that I look at the article again, I see that someone "helpfully" added the names of Roy's aunt and uncle but somehow plopped the original last sentence of the lead into the "Early Life" section. Yikes! Order is now restored; let peace reign in the valley.ch (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

- @CWH: - When I read it I did get the distinct impression that something was dropped into that section that was off, but I am not familiar with the subject enough to fix it, good job. This is now good to go. MPJ-US 08:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)