Template:Did you know nominations/Céline Gittens

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) 05:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Céline Gittens

(

)

… that in 2012 the Trinidadian Céline Gittens became the first black ballerina to dance the twin rôles of Odette and Odile in Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake in the United Kingdom?

Reviewed: Jozef Raskin

5x expanded by Justlettersandnumbers (talk). Self-nominated at 23:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC).

This article lacks the content to be considered long enough. A bare check shows it as 1,763 characters but removing the quotes takes it down to 1,297 and the bulk of those remaining characters are made up of the title of publications, ballet companies and people. Bcp67 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, Bcp67, fair enough. Where exactly do you find anything about removing quotes, though? WP:DYKAR rule A3 says "Prosesize.js is the preferred counting method, and usually carries the most weight at DYK, because it counts only the prose as defined by Did You Know rules"; size of this version using that script is 1763 B, exactly as given by DYK Check. How did you do your calculation? I don't plan to work on the article any further, so – assuming you've counted correctly – this nomination is withdrawn. I might use the QPQ for something else, though, so have struck it above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not Bcp67, but because I mistakenly thought this article was being withdrawn when what was asked was a question, I'll make a mea culpa by doing a length assessment: The Dr_pda/prosesizebytes.js tool gave me Prose size (text only): 1763 B (294 words) "readable prose size", so that's copacetic. Javascript Kit, manually removing all the stuff that doesn't count gave me 1819 characters. Also copacetic. My read of the rules at Wikipedia:DYKAR is that exclusions are "block quotes, headers, images and captions," not simple quotations. Even going through and removing everything within quotation marks in the JavaKit box still had it at 1556 characters by my count. Even if you take the 1763 number, if you count the stuff I manually removed, it is EXACTLY 1500 characters. So, my assessment is that it is long enough. I see no problem with the article having a lot of quotes from reviews, and I think the direct quotations are entirely appropriate. I would suggest to Bcp67 that it's OK to pass, but if a different reviewer is needed, at this point I would be willing to pass it myself because my interpretation of the guidelines and required criteria suggests that it meets the 1500 character standard. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Montanabw. I definitely didn't express myself clearly before, no blame attaches. Your estimate of the size agrees with mine; it'd be good if Bcp67 were also to comment. If that doesn't happen in the next couple of days, I'll probably ask for a second review – if I remember. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw for your help here. The line in the rules which I used as my guide was "... the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles...". Personally I didn't feel there was really enough newly-written content to qualify, but I'm happy with your assessment above and I'll pick up the review again in the next day or two. Bcp67 (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

My take is that the direct quotes were excerpts from reviews and it was necessary to directly cite them precisely to avoid a close paraphrase. It looks like they had to completely blank an earlier version for copyvio and rewrite from scratch. I'll look at the sources and see if maybe I can find another 100 words to add that will help. Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've added some material and re-ran the Prosesize.js tool, which now gives me: "2006 B (336 words) "readable prose size". If Justlettersandnumbers is OK with my additions, and Bcp67 agrees with the count, we should be able to finalize this for DYK. Montanabw^(talk) 06:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice additions, Montanabw, and thank you for them; I've added a little more myself. However, I'm not sure they'll count towards the 5x expansion, as more than seven days had passed since I started that. As far as I can see, the Prosesize tool count is correct. There's no text copied or close-paraphrased from public domain sources, and no block-quotation; a few phrases are quoted directly from reviews for the sake of accuracy. I've unstruck my QPQ on the assumption that this will now go ahead; but I'm still happy to withdraw it if consensus is that the expanded length was insufficient. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Review resumed - length established and the article was new enough at the time of nomination. Article provides neutral coverage of Gittens' career and is decently referenced with inline citations to online and offline sources. The hook fact is directly cited and can be verified by the online source cited and the hook is interesting and correctly formatted. No problems with copyvio or close paraphrasing. No image in the article. QPQ done. Pass for DYK. Bcp67 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)