Template:Did you know nominations/Hamish Peacock

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Skr15081997 (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Hamish Peacock[edit]

(
)

Created by NickGibson3900 (talk). Self nominated at 09:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Created 11 June, long enough
  • OK policy-wise, sourced according to websites
  • hook format is OK - except that "alongside" should be a single word!; it is accurate but does not seem in any way interesting, especially as there is no info about the brother on WP.
I would not be inclined to pass this unless an interesting hook can be found - unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything fascinating in the article. Can the nominator have a think about this? --Smerus (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
What about:
@Smerus: ALT1 ... that Hamish Peacock has competed at the Youth, Junior and Senior World Championships in Athletics?
If anyone else can think of a better one please tell me. NickGibson3900 (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that according to the rules the hook should be "likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article." That would generally be something which marked the uniqueness or unusualness of some aspect of the article content. A hook which could inispire the reader reaction "So what" woulld therefore fail this test. And indeed some articles may not contain anything that's particularly interesting to the casual reader. In this case, I doubt that the subject is the only athlete ever to have 'competed at the Youth, Junior and Senior World Championships in Athletics' - if he was, of course, (or, for example, if they had been in the same or successive years) and you could cite that, it would more definitely be a qualifying hook. As it stands, I don't feel it meets the criterion - but if others think I am being unreasonable, please comment! By the way, I've marked two or three places in the article where some clarification would be helpful.--Smerus (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO the main problem is not with the hook but with the article. The lead is a blob of information that's hard to wade through. I suggest leaving the first sentence in place as the lead, and then start arranging the material under subheads. The material could best be arranged chronologically.
  • Here's an ALT:
  • ALT2: ... that Hamish Peacock is the seventh best Australian of all time in the Javelin? Yoninah (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I've copyedited the article a bit, but there are still unexplained feaures; e.g. what exactly is 'qualification group A' and how does it differ from 'qualification group B'? Why is it necessary to state that HP 'has set personal bests'? - doesn't everyone (even me) have a personal best? - do you just mean to say that his persona bests have been recorded? Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Smerus: i have made all the changes you suggested NickGibson3900 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Nick, there has to be at least one cite in the paragraph under Youth & Junior World Championships, per DYK rules. Yoninah (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Done, referenced to Hamish Peacock's Athletics Australia profile which show his competitions and positions.
  • The article looks in good shape now. We need another reviewer to decide which hook to use. (Since I wrote ALT2, I can't sign off on this.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Summary of above reviews, which I take on trust: article is new enough, long enough, neutral, sufficiently referenced, original hook and ALT1 are acceptable (though a little dull). --Storye book (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Update review: All three hooks are acceptable and short enough. Original hook checks out with online citation #7. ALT1 checks out with online citation #4. No problems with access to external links (full manual check done). Spot checks done for possible copyvio and close paraphrasing; none found. Issues: (1) I cannot find evidence for ALT2 in citation #2. This may be my fault for not interpreting the table correctly. Help please NickGibson3900? (2) "Sollentuna" is a disambig link (full manual check done). When issues 1 and 2 are resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Storye book problem 2 has been fixed however does problem 1 need to be fixed (can't we use a different hook) or do you think this is the best hook and it is important for it to be fixed? NickGibson3900 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, NickGibson3900. I have struck issues 1 and 2 as they are now redundant. ALT2 was created because one editor thought that the original hook and ALT1 were not exciting enough. IMO anyone interested in athletics is likely to click on Peacock's name anyway; and we surely have plenty of athletics fans among our readers. So I think that ordinary, non-jazzy hooks can be OK. --Storye book (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • All issues resolved. Good to go with original hook or ALT1. --Storye book (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Hamish_Peacock&oldid=615452823"