Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, George F. Kennan: An American Life, Water by the Spoonful

[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Created/expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nom at 14:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    • Please merge those suggestions back here where discussion can occur in one place. I have frequently been encouraged to merge related hooks and these are mergable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


      • George, C3 says that for multiple hook noms the consensus shows calculations done through "a basic calculation by subtracting the number of characters in the bolded character string for each additional new article beyond the first. After having done that, if the hook length is still 200 characters or fewer, it is probably an acceptable length."
... that The Swerve: How the World Became Modern and won 2012 Pulitzer Prizes for History, General Non-Fiction, Biography or Autobiography and Drama, respectively?
Is well under 200 characters, and thus acceptable under C3. However, I find it unnecessary to use the full names. Perhaps something like:
ALT4 ... that Malcolm X, The Swerve, George F. Kennan and Water by the Spoonful won 2012 Pulitzer Prizes for History, General Non-Fiction, Biography or Autobiography and Drama, respectively?
Would be more acceptable (i.e. use the common name of the book and not its full one) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I also prefer the full book titles. Tony's original hook worked for me because I got to the words "2012 Pulitzer Prizes" and I didn't even need to read any further, but someone else might be hooked by the various award categories that follow. Incidentally, I've deleted the "s" in "Prizes" for several of the ALTs because when "four winners" come before the prize, "Prize" should be singular, as in the award itself: "four winners of the 2012 Pulitzer Prize". BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • For me, I would have liked it more if not for length, hook structure, and other interesting contents from these articles. To me, each of separate different hooks is more intriguing to hook more audience than mere award stuff, such as Malcolm X's alleged relationship. Personally, Pulitzers and Oscars are not my things anymore a long time ago, but they are good to research. --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Another thing: I think readers are more interested on description of subjects than accolades that the subjects received. Description of subjects would hook people more than awards, although awards would be a nice touch. --George Ho (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • And the other three? Shouldn't you be taking both of the Tenneys plus two others for this four-article hook? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There is currently no consensus as to whether one must do multiple reviews to QPQ for a multiple article hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems inappropriate to claim multiple QPQs from a single nomination, and then turn around and use one of these multiples to cover several in another multiple hook. I can see going hook for hook, or article for article, but not article for hook. I don't know of anyone who has tried that route, and I don't recommend it. If you plan to take advantage of the best of both worlds, I'd imagine that a consensus could very quickly be found for ending such a practice. You sure you don't want to supply those other three? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I just reread WP:DYKSG, H4: "An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable." You aren't even offering hook-for-hook. I still may propose that a user has to choose between article-for-article and hook-for-hook going forward, rather than mix and match. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved all posts into Template talk:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners. Will merge all separate hooks into this page, as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Separate hooks for each article (ALT 7)
  • To be honest, BlueMoonset's summarized comments about my actions (which are in its talk page) convinced me to change my mind and then merge. No other people have done that effectively for me. I hope the matter is settled already. As for comments in separate pages, you don't mind if they are all gone, do you? I will either nominate them for speedy deletion or withdraw all noms, so all the mess is settled. --George Ho (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't know how to withdraw all separate noms properly, so I typed "No" in the |passed= parameter and consider them rejected, but at least green notice is used to indicate withdrawl. --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
As the original nominator, I continue to prefer the original hook. ALT 2 and ALT5 are 2nd and 3rd in my mind.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What makes awards more special than separate hooks? Also, what about H4? --George Ho (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll rephrase: why is awards hook more interesting than four single hooks? Also, under WP:DYKSG#H4, .... there is no consensus for requiring article-for-article or hook-for-hook, but BlueMoonset encourages you to do either way for the quadruple hook. --George Ho (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • George, have you been treated to day after day of the same type of hook on the main page? First it was basketball teams, then it was horses. I think the single hook works and will spare readers a lot of repetition. Yoninah (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • To Yoninah: Which single hook? Anyway, single quadruple hook is a good bundle generally, yet sometimes it may reduce horribly a number of good single-article hooks. In this case, how generally interesting is the Pulitzer nowadays? --George Ho (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I meant a single hook for all 4 articles. Or a "quadruple hook", if you like. Yoninah (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the relevance of the popularity of the Pulitzer? I doubt any of the hooks will get 1000 views, but hope that somehow they total 5000.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Needs a new reviewer; it's the only one on my omnibus list last week in WT:DYK that didn't get attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • With all due respect to the author & above editors, i don't find the nom interesting at all, in any form. To me, it's just kinda like saying "Did you know that the world is, in fact, round?" I'm only being told about one thing which happened to three people, among so many others. Why not just say "Did you know a whole darn-lotta people whon Pulitzers?" Aside from all rules of DYK nom'ing, shouldn't the question "is this really turning people on to something they may find interesting but wouldn't have found out themselves?" there seems to be soooo many more noms worthy of the above debates. Just saying.Penwatchdog (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You're implying my separate alternative hooks (ALT 7) and quadruple hook, aren't you? --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it's "a plague on all your houses". Given the tone and the heavily italicized words, it would seem the author has thrown his slushball into the proceedings, and can return to fixing up his own DYK, which is doubtless considered to be one of the more worthy ones. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Still looking for that reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
no, no, no, no, not any implications whatsoever~ hey i'm new to all of this, folks. i don't consider my opinion to mean anything; just thought i'd give my opinion on something i happened to notice. forget it ever happened; please don't kill my nom! still requesting suggestions there too!Penwatchdog (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • All four articles are new enough (Malcolm X previously a redirect) and long enough. I have also confirmed that the original multi-hook proposed by Tony is supported by in-line citations to reliable sources. I also find the hook to be interesting and tied around a suitable common theme. I do, however, have a concern that I hope can be remedied promptly. The article on "The Swerve" simply strings together a long series of quotes about the book. The only sentence in the entire article that is not a quote is the opening sentence about the book winning the Pulitzer. This seems inconsistent with WP:QUOTEFARM: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style ... Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose." The Kennan and Spoonful articles aren't as bad, but could be improved on this issue as well. If you could remedy these issues, let me know and I'll give it a final pass for approval. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for addressing the concern with "The Swerve." If you have a few minutes to add more prose in proportion to quotes on the Kennan and Spoonful articles, I think it would make them stronger as well, but I don't see that as a reason to hold back this long-delayed hook any longer. Cbl62 (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting side-note: The discussion about this DYK nomination is actually longer than all four articles combined. That may be a DYK record that will never be broken! ;) Cbl62 (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
this is impossible to follow. which hook is approved? PumpkinSky talk 22:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Approval is of the original multi hook. Cbl62 (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/4_2012_Pulitzer_Prize_Winners&oldid=1189654236"