Talk:Hammond's Hard Lines

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 01:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that depending on the edition, a fairy or a gremlin grants wishes to the titular character of Hammond's Hard Lines?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Takara's Treasure Template:Did you know nominations/Teniky Template:Did you know nominations/Lesser sign of the cross
• Comment: A.K.A. C for Charlie (as a handful online have nicknamed the 1957 version for almost a decade and a half now).
  Filler project in light of higher-priority AFC tasks; inspired by this August 2024 filing at the Literature StackExchange, which came up on the parent service's "Hot Network Questons" feed one day during my perusal at GIS.SE (I'm currently engaged in a comeback geofictional project). First of two DYK nominations from yours truly today; stay tuned in a few hours for the other one.

Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Note that the hook as currently written might possibly not meet WP:DYKFICTION; as such, it will either need to be revised with additional real-world context, or a new hook needs to be proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Slgrandson: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1: ... that Hammond's Hard Lines was one of the few school stories to feature fantasy in its plot? Source: Wotton, Joy; Auchmuty, Rosemary, eds. (2000). "Skelton Kuppord (Pseudonym for Sir John Adams)". The Encyclopaedia of School Stories. Ashgate. p. 211. ISBN 0-7546-0083-1. Retrieved 2024-09-08 – via Google Books Snippets.

ALT1 as currently written is inaccurate: there are countless examples from anime and manga alone, let alone other genres of literature. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1b: ... that Hammond's Hard Lines was one of the few school stories by a British author to feature fantasy in its plot? Source: Wotton, Joy; Auchmuty, Rosemary, eds. (2000). "Skelton Kuppord (Pseudonym for Sir John Adams)". The Encyclopaedia of School Stories. Ashgate. p. 211. ISBN 0-7546-0083-1. Retrieved 2024-09-08 – via Google Books Snippets. (Emphasis on the nationality this time; apologies if I didn't sign last time.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really have doubts about this angle to be honest. It's a rather exceptional claim and thus needs exceptional sourcing, and I can't imagine that the hook is actually all that accurate, especially when Harry Potter exists. The term "few" in this case is also vague. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also has to be noted that the "by a British author" is not supported by the article or quote either, so unless that's resolved then ALT1b fails verification. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All that's left among my options is a review:

ALT2: ... that The Bookseller viewed Hammond's Hard Lines as "a very diverting amalgam of a fairy tale and an ordinary story of schoolboy life"? Source: "Messrs. Blackie & Son's Books for the Young: Hammond's Hard Lines. By Skelton Kuppord". The Christmas Bookseller. December 1894. p. 11. Retrieved 2024-09-19 – via Google Books. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, but this would still need a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is new and long enough, appropriately cited, and free from CV, NPOV issues, etc. However, I think the article overuses square brackets to alter quotes far beyond what's needed for clarity. Per MOS:PMC (No relation), we should be altering quotes as little as possible. In most of the cases in this article it's unnecessary (in the box quote, why add commas that weren't in the original?), and mostly could be written around instead of altering the quote. For example, the quote that has been altered to "In spite of [the] limitations [stemming from the text's simplification,]" could be rendered as something like The Woman Teacher observed that "the story flows smoothly and is interesting" despite having been simplified". This should be corrected before the article runs.

As for the hook, ALT2 is not particularly interesting, in my opinion. It boils down to a mildly positive review that mentions the genre. If we're going to do a quote hook, the Liverpool Post and Mercury review, with its comment about how the book is "dangerously experimental", seems much more hooky, since the average reader will wonder what on earth is dangerous about a milquetoast boys adventure story. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos I think you're being overly strict about the quotes. If this was WP:FAC, that would be a valid issue, but DYK doesn't require any WP:MOS compliance. It's good to point out ways the article could be improved, but I don't think it's fair to hold up approval based on criteria beyond what WP:DYKG requires. RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My non-approval was far more about the hook being boring than about the quote issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y @Premeditated Chaos: Fixed.

ALT3: ... that a 1920s reviewer considered Hammond's Hard Lines "dangerously experimental ground for boys' fiction"? Source: "Christmas Gift Books: Schools, Sport, and Mystery". Liverpool Post and Mercury. 1924-12-03. p. 13. Retrieved 2024-10-09 – via Newspapers.com. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think ALT3 is much more likely to attract clicks. Still think the quotes ought to be fixed, but I won't hold up promotion on it. I just looked at your QPQ though and I don't know that it's sufficient - WP:QPQ says it ought to be a "full review", but all that was done at Template:Did you know nominations/Takara's Treasure was to add a tick to another user's review. Do you have any full reviews to substitute? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slgrandson: Please note that the nomination times out in two days, so please promptly address any remaining concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No response from the nominator regarding the QPQ question, and the nomination is now two months old as of today. Marking for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT, without prejudice against it continuing if the QPQ issue is addressed before the nomination is closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Pinging back in after a long, Wi-Fi-less weekend post-Milton. (As a reminder, I'm based in Dover, Florida [in the vicinity of the affected area]; bear with me here, and I hope you understand.) Any concerns left? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slgrandson: You need to complete a full QPQ as the one you supplied is not sufficient.--Launchballer 19:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: As now provided above. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slgrandson, the new one is not better. It's merely a comment. Do you understand that a qualifying WP:QPQ needs to be a full review, as I noted above? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: New replacement provided. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slgrandson, I am genuinely not trying to be obstructive, but your comment there does not address the majority of things that are supposed to be addressed in a full DYK review. You have not addressed newness, length, the nominator's QPQ, or interestingness and length of the hook. You say "GBooks preview firmly checks out, matching the text in the article" but it's not clear whether you're verifying the hook here or just spot checking the source in general. And in point of fact, the hook there doesn't match the article text - the hook says the practice "has been traced back to the 12th century", but the article text says that that academic "traces the origin...to the 11th century". Please expand your review there, such that it properly addresses all aspects that a DYK review should address. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMC, does the updated review meet the criteria? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with apologies for my delay in replying. We're set to go here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]