Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Fleischman

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 SL93 (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Bill Fleischman

(
)

Created by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 16:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Created within seven days of nomination, long enough, and neutral with appropriate citations. No other apparent policy issues. QPQ complete. The hook could probably use a little work, although admittedly I'm not an expert at DYK. It's a bit longish at 199 characters, although technically within the limit. I suspect if it was more abstract but concise it might work better. Perhaps something along the below lines: Airborne84 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT2: that journalist Bill Fleischman received his short-notice assignment to write a major article on the 1974 Stanley Cup championship as a radio announcement?
ALT3: that a surprise radio announcement was how journalist Bill Fleischman received his short-notice assignment to write a major article on the 1974 Stanley Cup championship?
  • I appreciate the attempt to propose other hooks, but both ALT2 and ALT3 are incorrect and I have struck them. Fleischman's writing assignment was not about the 1974 Stanley Cup Finals (the six-game series), but rather about how the Philadelphia Flyers team itself was built. I might propose other hooks after contemplating this for a few days. Flibirigit (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
That's fine. You could alternatively replace 1974 Stanley Cup Finals with Philadelphia Flyers in either ALT2 or ALT3. I know that further narrows the hook down, but it just seems like the originals are trying to pack a lot in. I'm also not saying the original can't work; just that some thought should be given to a more concise one. Please do give it some thought. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT4: that a radio announcement was how journalist Bill Fleischman received a short-notice assignment to write an article on the 1974 Stanley Cup championship team was built? Source: https://www.inquirer.com/sports/bill-fleischman-obituary-remembrances-20190501.html
  • I have contemplated this for a couple days and could not think of anything better. I have reworded the proposed ALT3 to be ALT4 above. A third party is needed to review ALT4 since it was based on a proposal by the reviewer. General comments or other hooks are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have stumbled across this on the DYKN page, and I have to say ALT3 is by far the most understandable hook. I don't understand ALT4, namely what "was built" on the end which doesn't seem to be related to the rest of the sentence. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT4a: ... that a radio announcement was how journalist Bill Fleischman received a short-notice assignment to write an article on how the 1974 Stanley Cup championship team was built? Source: https://www.inquirer.com/sports/bill-fleischman-obituary-remembrances-20190501.html
  • ALT4 was missing the word "how". I have proposed an ALT4a instead. Flibirigit (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I think ALT4a is agreeable enough. Since others have weighed in, will give them a chance to comment as well. Airborne84 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to stick with ALT3 as the easiest to read. I feel like ALT4a is trying to be too specific, the interesting part of this hook is on how Fleischman was assigned to cover the team, not precisely what he was assigned to cover. But I don't have any horse in the race so to speak so I'm not particularly invested. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT3 is incorrect! Flibirigit (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok, clearly I don't know what I'm talking about. I can't pick a difference in meaning, only in wording, but I'll leave this up to you. I won't comment further. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
* I feel that the article is being misinterpreted, and will reword the corresponding passage later today or tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have rewritten the corresponding paragraph in the article, and hopefully it is more clear. New opinions requested on the two remaining hooks. Anyone is welcome to propose additional hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There are three remaining (not-struck) hooks: ALTs 0, 1 and 4a, so I shall review all three. I think that the content of all three ALTs is fine, and they use the hookiest thing in the article - the poor chap heard the radio announcement of the next-day publication of his article on the 1974 Stanley Cup, when he knew nothing about it, so he just sat down and wrote it. The problem is that the hooks are not quite in standard English, i.e. not quite clear, concise and to the point. So we have the content right - all we have to do is to rephrase it so that it runs smoothly and is easy to understand. To do that, we don't need to use all the wording, and we must put what remains in the right order for simplicity and hookiness. And there's your challenge. For example: ... that to his surprise, the radio said that Bill Fleischman's article on the 1974 Stanley Cup was coming out tomorrow, so he sat down and wrote it? Or maybe ... That Bill Fleischman heard to his surprise that his article on the 1975 Stanley Cup would be out tomorrow, so he just sat down and wrote it? That sort of thing. Storye book (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I will have a look at this in more detail tonight or tomorrow. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Here are some more hooks. I think the simplest way to make a hoos shorter is not to mention what he was writing about. Anyone else is welcome to propose something. Flibirigit (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Flibirigit, for ALTs 5, 6 and 7. We now have the language right, but there's something missing in 6 and 7: the reader is not being made aware that Fleischman had not been previously warned about the contents of the radio announcement (if I understand correctly, he had already done a quick, easy article, but he had not been told that he was expected to do a hefty piece of informative work). Admittedly, the very simple hook-examples that I gave above do fudge the fact that he had already prepared a simple little article, but there's only so much that we can get into the hook. So maybe the vaguer the better about the actual piece that he wrote, and the clearer the better about the fact that the radio announcer knew what poor Fleischman didn't. That leaves ALT1 (typo corrected to ALT5) which is perfectly fine, I think. Well done! Storye book (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I am confused as to why all hooks but ALT5 have been struck while the comment above seems to favour ALT1. I am also confused as to why the review above states "if I understand correctly, he had already done a quick, easy article". I felt that the statement, "Fleischman had planned to write a "fun and easy" article about the parade", was clear that he had not yet written anything. It is unclear to me if further changes are needed to the article, or new hooks are needed. Flibirigit (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Of course, you are quite right, Flibirigit, please accept my apologies. ALt1 was a typo, when I meant ALT5 which is a good hook. I agree, I wrote "had already done" instead of "had planned to write" because I wrote it from memory instead of double-checking the article. That fact is perfectly clear in the article, although my careless error does not affect the hook review, since neither the striking of ALTs 6 and 7 nor the approval of ALT5 are based on that fact. In fact that fact as written in the article makes ALT5 more correct (if that is possible). No further changes are needed in the article, and no more hooks are needed.
  • As far as I am concerned, this nomination is now good to go with ALT5, but I think Airborne84 is maybe still the primary reviewer, and I was just here to approve hooks? If Airborne84 does not reply soon, and if I'm asked to give the green tick, I should be happy to do so. Storye book (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Greatly appreciate the assistance with the hook Storye book. I believe this nomination is DYK ready with ALT5 preferred by all here. Airborne84 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bill_Fleischman&oldid=1067807854"