Template:Did you know nominations/Vicky Knight

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  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Vicky Knight[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)
  • ALT2: ... that Vicky Knight has said that all the tears she wept during the production of her debut film were real?
  • ALT3: ... that in an interview with the BBC, Vicky Knight said that her debut film has changed her life completely?
  • ALT4: ... that Vicky Knight, who played an acid-attack victim in her debut film role, set up a charity to help burns victims?
  • ALT5: ... that the actress Vicky Knight also works as a healthcare assistant in the hospital where she was treated as a child?

Created/expanded by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk). Self-nominated at 23:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC).

  • Length and currency: 1529 prose characters, so just meets the threshold; new enough.
  • Sourced: All claims in the article are sourced.
  • Hook: There is no mention of the subject having breakdowns on set in the article text, and it seems exploitative to use a living person's physical injuries and mental health issues to get DYK clicks in any case.
  • Article: Poorly composed and has grammatical errors. It only mentions the subject being in a fire and her role in one film; there is no other information at all, not even a date or year of birth, place of birth, etc.
  • Copyvio: The text is ok, Earwig pick up the quotes, but they have been cited. The image is not Creative Commons and is under discussion as a likely CopyVio.
  • QPQ: done
  • Overall: I don't think this should go through because the article is not complete or well-rounded enough, Rule D7. A biography should do more than just mention two events (the fire and the film role) that the subject was involved with. I'll leave it for a second opinion though.Felixkrater (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Coming here for a second opinion. I have to agree that the state of the article is not good enough for DYK at this time. Even if you do ignore the content issues, right now there are several typos and grammatical errors, meaning the article needs a copyedit. But more importantly, there seems to be too much weight given to the fire incident, while almost ignoring other aspects about her life and career. Thus, I have to concur with Felix's concerns regarding D7. @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I will give you ten days to address the article issues; the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful if you will be unable to do so. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I am working on it. Give me one more day.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Pinging Felixkrater to return to the nomination to complete the review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Note that I am opposed to the currently proposed hook due to BLP concerns. A more neutral hook is needed. Narutolovehinata5 tc csdnew 00:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
How about, "that Vicky Knight has said that all the tears she wept during the production of her debut film were real"? DS (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA:, @Narutolovehinata5:, I have had another look and have copy edited it re grammar and writing style, but there are still a number of problems:
  • CopyVio The image used is not under Creative Commons license and it is under discussion as a likely copyright vio.
  • Incomplete information -
  • 1. It says she was named "Student of the Year", but no mention of which FE College she went to, or what she studied.
  • 2. You mention a Ronnie Springer who saved the children, but no mention of who he was. I think he was one of the pub's customers from one of your sources, but you need to say and ref that; just naming someone with no explanation of who they are creates confusion.
  • 3. You have given a year of birth, but you don't make it specifically clear how old she was when the fire happened, and you don't specifically say that it was her cousins who were killed in the fire, although all of this info is given in the sources you found. This is important, basic info. You need to flesh the story about the pub fire a bit more - it looks a bit odd to just say "she fell asleep" in the pub, when she was staying, or being baby-sat, or living (which one?) with her grandfather. Were the children alone in the flat?
  • 4. I heard her being interviewed on the BBC a few weeks ago, and her "day job" is working as a care assistant in the hospital burns unit where she was treated. I think that is important info that should be included. It is probably in your sources, or you could do further research to find a source.
  • Hook - As already noted, the hook is exploitative and too negative. The one suggested by DS above is also too negative. Something around the charity she set up, or the fact that she works where she was treated would be better.
  • Final point - Can you please spend more time preparing your articles before nominating them for DYK. English doesn't seem to be your first language, so with any article you write, you need to get someone you know to review it or ask the Project Guild of Editors to look at it. Felixkrater (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Felixkrater, all of the issues have been fixed.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi @CAPTAIN MEDUSA:, that is much better. I've given it another copy edit and added ALT4 and ALT5 hooks above. I'm not sure about leaving the photo in the article when it hasn't been confirmed that it is fair use. I'll leave this now for someone else to approve or comment on. Felixkrater (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to complete the review here; previous reviewer is leaving this for someone new. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the article, and also done some editing on it. It was new when nominated, and just long enough (it is now 2.5 times longer). All info is sourced (I have added additional citations to some sources, which supported more of the information than they had been cited for). Earwig picked up some lines copied from one source, which I have reworded (the direct quotes are marked as such and referenced, so OK). The article now seems more neutral. I have added info about her school, and her mother's name (which is in several of the sources) - I think it might be possible to make the '2003 fire' section into the usual 'Early life' section, but this is much more neutral than the original 'Fire victim' section heading. I have struck ALT2, which Felixkrater thought was too negative. I'm going to suggest another hook, a combination of ALTs 4 & 5 above:
  • ALT6 ... that Vicky Knight, who played an acid-attack victim in her debut film role, works as a healthcare assistant in the hospital where she was treated as a child?
I think it is interesting that she works in the same hospital where she was treated herself, and I also think that mentioning the role she has played will help people identify her, as the film is new this year, and the name Vicky Knight is not yet familiar to many people. Perhaps that's too much in one hook, though, in which case I prefer ALT4 or ALT5 - I don't think it's that unusual that debut films change actors' lives, so have struck ALT3.
So again, this will need a new reviewer to choose which hook to use. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this meant to be a double nomination with the actress and the film? The film is in bold, but there is only one DYKmake template for the actress and I didn't see anyone review the film article. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It appears that nominator CAPTAIN MEDUSA bolded the link to the film after that article underwent a 5x expansion in mid-July, but never mentioned doing so at the time. If the desire is to make this a two-article hook, then a second QPQ review will need to be supplied, but as well there needs to be an explicit declaration that the second article is being nominated, and then a review of the second article will need to be done here. Thanks to SL93 for pointing out the problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I have added another QPQ. I declare that another article is being nominated.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Full review needed of the Dirty God article and of the previously approved ALT6 hook in relation to that article. Thanks. Pinging Felixkrater, who reviewed the Vicky Knight article, to see whether they want to do a second review here; if not, we can find a second reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, BlueMoonset, I don't have any more time to spend on this. Besides, if he did the expansion of the 2nd article in mid-July, isn't it too late to nominate it now? Felixkrater (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Felixkrater, I'm willing to assume that the bolding of the article name here on July 15, at the time of the expansion, was a good faith effort to add the article to the nomination in a timely fashion, and allow it. Thanks for your work on the original article.
New reviewer needed to do full review of Dirty God and of ALT6 in relation to that article, plus check the new QPQ. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that I also had not noticed that the film was bolded too. CAPTAIN MEDUSA, I have just had a look at the article, and done a little copy-editing. I notice that neither of the paragraphs in the Plot section have any citations at all, so that will need to be addressed before this article can meet the criteria for DYK. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The article Dirty God is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. @RebeccaGreen: is probably unaware that plot sections do not need citations, the film (or book) being considered to be its own source. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. Relying on Felixkrater's review of Vicky Knight and approving ALT6. An extra QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Vicky_Knight&oldid=913333847"