Template:Did you know nominations/Jack and Ed Biddle

Jack and Ed Biddle

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ALT0 ... that warden's wife Kate Soffel, who fled with condemned brothers Jack and Ed Biddle after supplying guns and saws for their 1902 escape from the Allegheny County Jail, later took up dressmaking?

5x expanded by CasimirCrazyHorse (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 01:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

• I should have mentioned when making the nomination: Kate Soffel is a redirect to Jack and Ed Biddle, so there's no point in linking both in the hook, and in fact it would annoy readers to follow both links and find they go the same place. Since the hook is really about Soffel, I think it is she that should be "emboldened" (so to speak), rather than they. EEng (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. — Maile (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• The link to the DYK article should be directly to the actual article rather than a redirect. Yes, they should definitely not both be linked. Since you want the bold link to be on "Kate Soffel", I changed [[Kate Soffel]] to [[Jack and Ed Biddle|Kate Soffel]]. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why I should care one way or another, but my curiosity is getting the best of me... why does this matter? EEng (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Some reasons: The bot would complain that it was unable to find the hook corresponding to the article. The DYK notifications placed on the user and article talk pages would not include the text of the hook. And those notifications include a link for seeing the number of page views, but that link would be for the number of hits the actual article title got, and would not include the hits generated by people clicking on the redirect in the DYK, which are tabulated separately.

Note to potential reviewers: this nomination has not received any kind of review yet. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, just so long as you're not one of those idiots saying that redirects are inefficient. EEng (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• This article has a plethora of "clarification needed" templates, "when?" templates, and a "not in citation given" warning. These need to be resolved, or this article can't go on the main page.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I added the tags hoping the editor who developed the article would fill in some details. But he/she hasn't, so I've removed all the but three most essential "clarify-neededs," plus a "when?". I don't think that's too embarrassing for main page. Thanks for taking the trouble to do the review. (Great flick, by the way.) EEng (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: It shouldn't be too hard to fix the clarification issues. I don't feel comfortable promoting the article with them there, though. Could you perhaps clean them up/elaborate on the sentences?--¿3family6 _contribs 02:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"It shouldn't be too hard to fix the clarification issues." And you know that how? The answers aren't in the online sources cited in the article, and I don't feel like going to the library to research this particular subject. (I stubbed the article long ago, but didn't do the real work -- some other editor did a few weeks ago.) Yet some other editor might be so inspired, prompted by the tags. Every goddam time I nominate a DYK I run into this idea that new content developed in five days is supposed to be all shiny and perfect. It's ridiculous. This isn't TFA, it's DYK. It's WP's "newest" content, not "best" content. Can you point me to a rule or guideline calling for the article to be tag-free?

Or, perhaps, I'll do what I see so many DYK regulars doing, which is to just remove cite-needed, clarify-needed, better-source-needed, and other tags whose job it is to attract other editors to improve the article, thereby just pretending that the article is "finished", with nothing further to be done, even though a superficial read shows it clearly needs work.

Again, please point me to the rule or guideline you're following here.

EEng (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

One clarification tag or two isn't all that big a deal. But three clarification tags plus two date requests is not so clean. Sorry, I assumed that it would not be too hard to find the dates for when the Biddles were arrested, tried, and convicted. And that does seem like very basic, important information, does it not? Also, where is Graham farm? I don't even think the state is mentioned. Is it still in PA? The other two clarification tags aren't that big a deal, and I'll go ahead and try to resolve them myself.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the final paragraph(s) in the "Pursuit and capture" section either need to be cited or else removed (although the former is by far the better option content-wise).--¿3family6 _contribs 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something due to the length of this review, the prose in all of the paras you are mentioning is clearly cited here. I'm willing to fix any others that you think need it, Google is hitting every one I try. That said:

• ALT1: ... that when Jack and Ed Biddle escaped from the Allegheny County Jail in 1902, the warden's wife fled with them after supplying guns and saws?
• ALT2: ... the warden's wife fled with Jack and Ed Biddle after supplying them with guns and saws for their escape from the Allegheny County Jail in 1902? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually the "Origins" source was already in the article, but you're right that it can be used for a few things not already cited.

It's not a big deal to me, but I prefer ALT0. ALTs 1 and 2 don't mention the Biddles were condemned (which always adds frisson -- two guys locked up for parking tickets just wouldn't be as much fun); they don't mention Soffel by name (which she deserves, and she's the most interesting of the three -- great flick, BTW); and the dressmaking is a fitting anticlimax. EEng (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess its down to opinion, but ALT0 is confusing to read, hides the article name for no apparent reason, and adds an ending flourish which does nothing for the hook. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it comes down to opinion, and I'm sure we can come to some fair compromise. As an initial proposed compromise, let me suggest that we just do it my way.

Just kidding. But I think you're worrying about some things that aren't really problems. For example, you're right that the article title (formally) isn't in the hook, but that's OK -- it's a merged article, about two subjects: (1) the Biddles, and (2) Kate Soffel. In a case like the one or the other has to be chosen as the title of the article (in this case the Biddles) but that doesn't mean that Soffel is any less a fit subject for a hook -- her being in bold in the lead, with an appropriate redirect entry under her name, is probably the threshold requirement there.

I really don't see what's confusing to read about ALT0. "Kate Soffel, who did [something] after doing [something], later did [something]." It packs in a lot of detail, which helps catch reader interest -- readers interested in capital punishment, readers interested in prisons, readers interested in saws and guns, readers interested in dressmaking... ;) .

But I really don't know what you mean about the "ending flourish" doing nothing for the hook. Hooks are supposed to be "hooky" -- intriguing. The contrast between the image of the freed-from-her-fetters-of-staid-middleclass-convention gun moll fleeing with her illicit lover, and her later prosaic existence as a dressmaker, lends such intrigue (well, maybe not intrigue, but you get the idea).

At least, that's the way I see it. Further thoughts? EEng (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• I like the original hook. And I think the article as it now stands can go forward to the main page. Does anyone disagree?--¿3family6 _contribs 00:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. or Ms. Family. I like the fact that, though you and I are having a bit of a disagreement elsewhere, you don't let that engender friction everywhere. You thus show yourself to be a gentleman (or gentlewoman), and a scholar. EEng (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Full review from scratch. Long enough, 5x expanded (for 5 April nomination.) I understand that because this is not a self-nom, there is no need for QPQ. No disambig or external link problems. Original hook (ALT0) checks out with citations #8 for the dramatic events and #9 for the dressmaking. The hook is longer than normal, but it is interesting enough to be acceptable. There are two question templates remaining ("When" and "Clarification needed") in order to encourage further editing, but that is OK for a DYK. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)