Template:Did you know nominations/Ray Long

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ray Long[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by Futurist110 (talk). Self nom at 00:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Please format your reference list appropriately - use citation templates or other methods of giving information about the citation, to avoid the use of bare URLs that might go dead and leave your article unverifiable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that I formatted this article correctly now. Futurist110 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't seem so - it may be that you'll have to do some of it manually rather than through Reflinks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Futurist110, I noticed that you now have five successful DYKs. That's the most you're allowed to have before a quid pro quo (QPQ) review is required for all subsequent submissions. As such, that means you must supply a completed review of someone else's nomination before this one can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed a DYK article here: Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Brisbane and I added sources for 2004 and 2008 now as well. I think this article is good to go right now. Futurist110 (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I've reviewed another two DYK? nominations right now.
I hope that someone can review this DYK? nomination of mine now, since I already did 3 DYK? nomination reviews myself. Futurist110 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Needs new review now that QPQ has been satisfied. (QPQ article reviewed now listed in header.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

—

  • Hook isn't good. It says he ended up in poverty again, but doesn't say whether he was ever poor. It's confusing - how could it happen "again"? Was he previously poor? It needs to be clarified.
  • The article consists solely of 1 paragraph per section. This creates unaesthetic walls of text, particularly "life and success." I gave an example of how to split paragraphs in the "suicide" section. As you can see, it has also become apparent now that two sentences are missing a reference, "Long died half an hour after being taken to the hospital. He never regained consciousness."
  • There are some grammar errors, which I'll fix.
  • Article could use an infobox person template. --Activism1234 23:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • 1. He was born in poverty, as mentioned and cited in the article itself.
  • 2. I can separate some of the paragraphs.
  • 3. I'll do an infobox template when I'll have some time.
Are there any more problems with this article that I need to fix, or is that it? Futurist110 (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I fixed everything that you told me to fix. Futurist110 (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

— Everything mentioned above has been fixed, article is of good quality and reliably referenced, looks like it's good to go. --Activism1234 03:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with Activism1234's original comment: that the hook is confusing rather than hooky. Can an alternate please be proposed that fixes these issues? And, frankly, I doubt the "ended up in poverty" claim. This source says that he was well paid for his work when he died, and he was maintaining two homes (Hollywood and Connecticut) and had a maid at the former, which doesn't sound like "poverty". I can't check the Time article, on which the "so financially desperate" phrase was based, but is that referring to the very end of his life? His business clearly went bankrupt in 1933, but the editorial job and other work makes it sound like he was making ends meet in 1935, and his income was above poverty levels. The obits I can find seem to imply that he was despondent because he though he'd lost his edge as a writer. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Argh sorry, missed the hook and went straight to the article. Yes, I agree. --Activism1234 16:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
ALT1: *... that despite previously being very successful, former Cosmopolitan magazine editor Ray Long went bankrupt in 1933 and ended up committing suicide?
ALT2: *... that Ray Long was the editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine between 1919 and 1931?
How are these alternate hooks? And Yes, you're right that the ended up in poverty again line might be a little too severe. Futurist110 (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I like ALT2, but was wondering whether it might be more interesting with a short addition. (ALT1 implies a cause and effect that I don't think is warranted.)
  • ALT3: ... that Ray Long was the editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine between 1919 and 1931, and left to become a book publisher? —BlueMoonset (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
ALT3 is good with me. If you want to use it, that's totally cool. Futurist110 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
— Seems like everyone is fine with Alt3, so I'd say it's good to go (Alt3). --Activism1234 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ray_Long&oldid=1021534851"