Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Risley Carlisle

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Risley Carlisle

[edit]

"The Risley"

Created by Rob at Houghton (talk). Self nominated at 15:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Article is new enough (created July 21), long enough, uses in-line citations and is neutrally written. The hooks are short enough and interesting enough. Spot-checking finds no evidence of unduly close paraphrasing, copyright violation or plagiarism. The main hook is sourced to this book which is not available to me in a google books preview; good faith therefore assumed on the part of the nominator (the Wikipedian in residence at Harvard's Houghton Library). The alt 1 hook is supported by this source. Image in public domain per Houghton Library notation. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hold it. First of all, "credited for the origin" makes no sense, and as I read the article there are conflicts in the definitions of what a "Risley" is said be at Risley act versus in this article (esp. with respect to whether it has to involve children). This needs to be sorted out. Also, article says "listed in the Guiness Book of World Records" but doesn't say what for, and neither does the source the article cites. It sounds a bit fishy. EEng (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Eeng - Do you have a problem with the alt 1 hook? Also, you may want to alert the nominator to your concerns, so he can address them. Cbl62 (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Alt1 looks OK on its surface anyway. I assume the nominator is watching. EEng (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No need to alert me, I'm paying attention here already. How does "credited for the origin" make no sense? Like, no sense at all? The Guiness record is in the external link, and the Risley act started with children before it came to refer to juggling anything with the feet (added that info). --Rob at Houghton (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It means unless we're in a time warp back to 1800 [1] it's an unusual construction that doesn't really fit here -- credited with would be much better. I'm still not seeing what the Guiness record was for -- "most kids juggled with feet"? EEng (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(undenting a bit) Okay, the construction was unusual. I was worried that you literally had no sense of what that meant; it seems there was at least minimal sense after all! Alt hook added. Updating text for Guinness Record information on article too. --Rob at Houghton (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, "credited with ... by juggling" doesn't make sense either. Howzabout

EEng (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this works very well. I like "originating" much better; not sure why I didn't think of it myself. --Rob at Houghton (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Leave your check at D East, 5th row, 4th case, 3rd shelf from the top, behind the portfolios. EEng (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)