Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Williams (producer)
- 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 97198 (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Elizabeth Williams (producer), TodayTix
[edit]... that Broadway producer Elizabeth Williams believes that the mobile app TodayTix may allow Broadway shows "to reach audiences [...] we haven't been able to reach before"?
ALT1: ... that Tony-winning producers Merritt Baer, Brian Fenty and Elizabeth Williams partnered on TodayTix, an app designed to make buying Broadway tickets easier?
- Note: This nomination is now for Elizabeth Williams only; TodayTix now has a separate nomination.
- ALT2: ... that Tony Award-winning Broadway producer Elizabeth Williams is also an archaeologist and art historian who has taught at Columbia University and the University of California at Berkeley?
- ALT3: ... that Tony Award-winning Broadway producer Elizabeth Williams's five successful plays in 2000 were "probably a record for female producers" according to New York magazine?
- Reviewed: Sigala (musician)
Created by GrammarFascist (talk). Self-nominated at 12:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC).
-
- Well, I'm no expert on Broadway, but apparently drawing in large enough audiences to fill the house and let the shows turn a profit is something of a serious problem on Broadway. With that background, attracting audiences that had previously not gone to Broadway shows at all seems like a pretty big deal, and that makes it interesting to me, at least. Maybe I should make the backdrop of attracting audiences being an issue clearer in one or both articles? And this is yet another nomination I've added the QPQs to after the fact. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe. LavaBaron (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hook violates supplementary rule F10. Per the article's source [1], Elizabeth Williams is a paid spokesperson for TodayTix. While Fascist is most probably not a COI editor, including an endorsement of a product from a paid spokesperson for said product as a DYK hook generally violates the proscription that "information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." A paid executive employee of a company will generally not be able to make objective and unbiased statements about said company. Since the entire hook is essentially an endorsement quote from the company's paid spokesperson, this isn't really salvageable. LavaBaron (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, no COI here; thanks for asking, LavaBaron, and for being so thorough in your review. Williams's title is partner and consultant, not "paid spokesperson" which is somewhat different, and I don't consider the conservative wording "may allow" to constitute "puffery", but I've provided an alternate hook nonetheless. If consensus is that no hook joining the two articles can be made to comply with policy, though, surely the nomination can just be split rather than scuttled? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Partner" is even worse as it indicates she has an ownership stake and vested financial interest in the company. The new hook doesn't work as it contains an affirmative declaration (it may well be an ad slogan) in the form of "designed to make buying Broadway tickets easier." For Alt-1 to work it would have to be reworded as "that the company contends makes buying Broadway tickets easier" or something like that. LavaBaron (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, no COI here; thanks for asking, LavaBaron, and for being so thorough in your review. Williams's title is partner and consultant, not "paid spokesperson" which is somewhat different, and I don't consider the conservative wording "may allow" to constitute "puffery", but I've provided an alternate hook nonetheless. If consensus is that no hook joining the two articles can be made to comply with policy, though, surely the nomination can just be split rather than scuttled? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand the bases for your latest objections, LavaBaron. Williams is a partner in TodayTix, in addition to being a theatrical consultant, and that fact is both clearly stated and cited in the TodayTix article. The phrasing "designed to" only contends that that was the creators' intent; in fact the app apparently does make buying Broadway tickets significantly easier, as is attested to by multiple independent reliable sources cited in the articles. But I thought that fact, however well-substantiated, would come across as overly promotional, which is why I chose the wording that makes no claim as to whether the app in fact functions as designed. An actual advertising slogan wouldn't qualify "makes X easier!" with "designed to". Would you perhaps prefer a quotation from one of the reviews in the hook, such as that TodayTix is "help(ing) the theater industry adapt" or that it has "the easiest interface yet"? Are you actually checking what facts are sourced in the articles before making these objections? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 00:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don’t’ think you understand my concern. I don’t doubt there have been positive reviews of her web app and you have done a good job citing them. I’m unclear why, in a DYK nom of an article on a multiple Tony Award-winning Broadway producer, the only possible hooks you can offer are ones promoting positive reviews of the mobile web app she’s schilling for a buck-fifty on the iTunes store? However, in deference to your concern about my ability in this review, I’ll ask for a second opinion at the NPOV noticeboard. Maybe I'm wrong. LavaBaron (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've arrived via that notice and I'm inclined to agree. I just don't see how we can include a brief reference of this connection in a manner in which it wouldn't constitute blatant promotion. This simply is not a factoid that is well suited to DYK. Snow let's rap 04:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks - with that affirmation I think we're going to need an entirely new hook. Fascist; you've seemed to indicate you don't want to provide one so I think we'll just need to close this nom as failed. I'll keep it open for 24 hours after your next edit to WP in case you change your mind. LavaBaron (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything I've said could be construed as meaning I'm unwilling to provide another alt. Regardless, I will do so, though it'll probably be separate hooks for each article, based on Snow Rise's comment. Watch this space. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 10:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- New hooks added. Whoever knows how to remove TodayTix from this nomination properly, please do so; I didn't want to guess wrong. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
C&Px5 LavaBaron (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
A friendly reminder to LavaBaron that reviews should specifically include a statement indicating which hooks are ready
per WP:DYKR; this is clearly indicated when there are multiple hooks listed as is the case here. Once that's been done, this nomination should be ready to go. GrammarFascist, I have removed TodayTix from the DYK nom page template and the DYKmake for it as well, which is all that's needed here. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything I've said could be construed as meaning I'm unwilling to provide another alt. Regardless, I will do so, though it'll probably be separate hooks for each article, based on Snow Rise's comment. Watch this space. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 10:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've arrived via that notice and I'm inclined to agree. I just don't see how we can include a brief reference of this connection in a manner in which it wouldn't constitute blatant promotion. This simply is not a factoid that is well suited to DYK. Snow let's rap 04:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
