Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Endsleigh Gardens

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 Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Endsleigh Gardens

[edit]
(
)
Hannah Dobbs
Hannah Dobbs
  • ... that Endsleigh Gardens was originally part of Euston Square, but was renamed following a "gruesome murder"?
  • Alt1... that in 1878, Endsleigh Gardens was the scene of a murder for which Hannah Dobbs (pictured) was acquitted at the Old Bailey?

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC).

COMMENT: @Philafrenzy: the hook is ambiguous, maybe even to the point of being misleading. It was named following the murder, not named after as in given the same name as. Umimmak (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Umimmak. Agreed, hook reworded accordingly. Edwardx (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Gruesome murder put in quotes as it is. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Full review needed now that hook issues have been discussed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Long enough. The DYK submission was made a day and half late, but personally I would be willing to overlook that. There is a citation needed template on the article which must be fixed before promotion. No copyvio detected, images properly licensed. Alt1 hook is ok, the first hook would be acceptable if "Euston Square" was changed to "part of Euston Square". I'm concerned with the general quality of the refs. I only did a small sample, but the results were mixed. Ref#1 does not have a named author, but it is on a university site so probably ok. Ref#2 is a ref to a book, but the information appears to have been taken from the publisher's advertising blurb rather than the book itself. At least, that's where the link goes and there are no page numbers cited. Ref#3 is a blog. Ref#4 checks out, but the cited sentence contradicts the lead. The article (and the source) say the whole square was renamed. The lead says the South side was renamed. Ref#9 goes to the promotional site for Friends House, apparently to verify the location of Friends House, but the word "Endsleigh" does not appear on the page. It gives the address as Euston Road, and that's putting aside the question of using a promotional site as a reliable source. I'm not seeing any contribution from either author on the page cited for QPQ. SpinningSpark 18:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Thanks for the review. First hook struck as not needed. Regarding the refs:

  • I agree that Indiana University Bloomington is reliable despite not having a named author.
  • Ref 2 should be acceptable as a page from The History Press which is a reputable publisher.
  • The only function of Ref 3 appears to be so that we can use the quote "gruesome murder". The Alt can work without it and I take your point that it is a blog, however it is Senate House Library of the University of London (nearby) and can't all murders reasonably be described as "gruesome". There are no nice murders. Do you feel strongly about it?
  • Ref 4 replaced with a better source and wording amended accordingly.
  • By Ref 9 do you mean Ref 5 https://www.friendshouse.co.uk/ ? I have removed it as the fact was already supported by the Ordnance Survey map reference.

There is no requirement for the person who did the QPQ to have made any contribution to this article. The QPQ was a gift in consideration for helping out elsewhere. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, there is no indication from the reviewer either here or at the reviewed article that the review has been "donated". More importantly, the QPQ requirement is on the nominator of the article: " For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍" (my emphasis). I haven't done a new review, I'll wait till the QPQ issue is resolved first, but judging by your replies it looks like it still has problems. SpinningSpark 22:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Your italics, it just means that it's one for one, hence quid pro quo. If you check the edit history you will see that the review was added by Whispyhistory, unprompted, with the edit summary "(dyk qpq- gift to EdwardX)". It's not a trick to try to get out of doing one. Edwardx and I have done 100s, it was just a nice thought from another user. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Spinningspark, having an uninvolved editor donate a QPQ has been done many times in the past here at DYK. It is perfectly legitimate: so long as a full review has been done of another article, while the onus is on the nominator, someone else can volunteer to supply the needed QPQ in place of the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Bluemoonset, thanks for clarifying that. QPQ is all good now. It would have been clearer if the donation had been stated and linked to the edit summary that actually made the donation. I'll take another look at the article. SpinningSpark 08:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Still problematic
    • "gruesome murder". If this is in quotes, it must be attributed to someone and cited directly with an inline cite per WP:V. If it is not in quotes, it is being said in Wikipedia's voice and runs afoul of WP:WTW.
    • "The Ghosts of Senate House" ref is still a blog regardless of Sarah Sparkes' (the blogger) connection with Senate House Libraary. There is no evidence that Sparkes meets the expert requirement at WP:SPS. The strapline at the top of the page reads "apocryphal stories and the spirit of the place", to my mind, openly declaring itself to be non-RS. The page calls for ghost stories to be sent in, and many of the posts on the page are from authors other than Sparkes with no sign there has been any kind of editorial fact checking. The relevant post is not by Sparkes, but by Chris Josiffe who appears to be an undergraduate, again almost certainly not meeting WP:SPS.
    • On reflection, I accept the History Press source as being reliable, but only because it was written by Jan Bondeson himself, the author of the book being discussed, and he probably does meet WP:SPS. We do not normally accept publihser's blurbs as being reliable, no matter how notable the publishing house is. Basically, they are advertising and can't be relied on to be a true reflection of the book's content or all its nuances.
This will be my last review of this submission. Please do not ping me, if you need another review then wait for anouther reviewer. SpinningSpark 09:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Gruesome murder" replaced with just murder. Blog removed. New reviewer required for the final tick since everything else has been done as far as I can see. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A lengthy-ish book account of the murder is here. Might make a better ref. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Johnbod:, but as far as I can see everything has been addressed and it just needs a final tick. (perhaps you could oblige?) Philafrenzy (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: article appears quite clear and concise, cited and laid out out well. Very interesting. I might have added a hook about Persephone books wishing a well deserved blue plaque for Amy Levy, but current hook great. copyvio 7.4% ok. Noted slight delay in nomination was ok. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Returned from prep for further work per discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 1 - who is Hannah Dobbs?. New hooks under consideration:
  • ALT2: ... that the unsolved "Euston Square Murder" was so notorious that the houses where it took place were renamed Endsleigh Gardens? Yoninah (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT2a: ... that the unsolved "Euston Square Murder" for which Hannah Dobbs (pictured) was acquitted at the Old Bailey in 1879, was so notorious that the houses where it took place were renamed Endsleigh Gardens? Needs the pic I think since it clearly places it in time as a Victorian murder mystery. And since we are saying unsolved we can also say acquitted. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Philafrenzy: ALT2a is really wordy. If you want to work in Hannah Dobbs, although she's not notable enough for her own Wikipedia page (maybe you want a double hook?), try:
  • ALT3: ... that in 1879, Hannah Dobbs (pictured), a former servant at No. 4 Eaton Square, was implicated in the discovery of a corpse in the coal cellar, but was acquitted at the Old Bailey for lack of evidence?Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Either Alt2 or ALT4: ... that the "Euston Square Murder" for which Hannah Dobbs (pictured) was acquitted, was so notorious that the houses where it took place were renamed Endsleigh Gardens?
I don't see why we can't use the image, she's long dead and closely relates to the hook. We don't need to explain everything and the reader can easily infer from the image that we are talking about an historic event. I don't think she needs to be notable either. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • But she's not notable, and she was acquitted of the crime. The people over at WP:ERRORS are very insistent on notability on the main page. Thanks for okaying ALT2; new reviewer needed to review that one. Yoninah (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
She doesn't need to be notable, it's the street that is notable and she's an illustration of someone from the street. It also doesn't matter that she was acquitted. Let errors moan if they like, that's what they enjoy. It's twice as strong with the pic. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - plus the crime certainly would be notable, even if she is not. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the article is okay, and the issues relate to the hook. I've reworked the part of the article dealing with the renaming, and made it a separate section, following the one about the murder. Based on the changes, I'd like to suggest a hook, quoting a source from 1884, which I think is intriguing. Since I've made the revisions and suggested the hook, I can't sign off. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
*ALT5: ... that one side of Euston Square may have "tried to bury the murderous memories attached thereto" by changing its name to Endsleigh Gardens?


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: It was a day late in being nominated, but that has been excused above. And I re-excuse this in case that is needed. I have tweaked ALT5 slightly, I hope that that is acceptable to the nominator. The image, IMO, is no longer relevant to this hook. If the promotor disagrees then it is free use, clear at 100px and used in the article. A lot of work has gone into this by numerous people to come up with something that works. Having gone through the previous discussions, all of the issues raised seem to have been addressed. (Thank you Mary Mark Ockerbloom.) I feel that it is now good to go. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Endsleigh_Gardens&oldid=1189656769"