Talk:Canyon Kid's Corner

Did you know nomination

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 Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Canyon Kid's Corner in Sioux City, Iowa, was one of the two pioneers of children's programming in the state alongside The Magic Window? Source: "While the Magic Window and Canyon Kid were pioneers in Iowa children's programming, programs designed for children were a part of early television in eastern Iowa, as well." - Stein, Jeff (2004). Making Waves: The People and Places of Iowa Broadcasting. WDG Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 0-9718323-1-5.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bally's Chicago

Created by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC).

• Aside from adding a MOS:GEOCOMMA to the hook, I'm not going to review this one because I decided my time would be better used providing newspaper references in my breadbasket topic area. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Sammi Bri I'm not sure why you had to make a comment about it. It sounds passive aggressive. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Sammi Brie SL93 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• It probably...was, tbh. I left as a note for myself as I'm trying to reduce the DYK backlog considerably and didn't want to wind up on this page again. I apologize, SL93. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sammi Brie It sounded like you had a big issue with the article. I would like to know why if that is the case. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• I simply knew where I could be more impactful—by adding related references. I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive. That was not my intention. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sammi Brie It's fine. I just never saw a comment phrased that way at DYK before. It did look like you were upset at the article for some reason and it is an article that I worked hard on. SL93 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Sammi Brie By the way, do you want an author credit for adding to the article? SL93 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• SL93, I'll leave that call to you. It wasn't that it was bad—it was that I knew I could bring more to it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sammi Brie I think that there are other DYK nominations of mine that can have more added, but they can be added on to anytime. I brought some articles to a higher rating including GA and a FA after they ran on DYK so I admit that I'm fine with you not adding a lot to the article. It isn't really an ownership issue - I just have plans for certain articles in the future that could be completely ruined. I was planning on expanding Joseph Eiboeck, which is at DYK, to GA status when I have more time for it. It didn't work out with Joseph Eiboeck because the reviewer significantly expanded it and barely any of the content is from me now. :( SL93 (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Sammi Brie While I do realize Wikipedia is a collaborative project, there is a 7 day limit and there is no requirement for a DYK article to be complete or almost complete. However, it can't be a stub. I know you're not being malicious or anything like that, but I'm confused on why someone would refuse to review an article just because it can be expanded more. SL93 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• I now understand the comments per Sammi's talk page. SL93 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Full review needed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - The article seems to sit between being about the TV show and being about the host? Do we really need information about the host's death 30 years after the show finished airing?

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting: - Hook is pretty boring.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Needs a better hook and content issues detailed above to be fixed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir.copic The death of the host part is fine because it relates back to the show and the show is what he is known for. The show is even listed in the title of the sources. The tribute was only held because he starred in the show. SL93 (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir.copic I removed irrelevant content that was added by another editor. SL93 (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not buying it. Dustin Diamond was known for his part in Saved by the Bell but that article does not mention Diamond's death decades after the show. IMO his death would need to be tied to the TV show for this to be relevant. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir.copic I just said how the tribute to him after his death is tied to the show. This situation is entirely the opposite. This article is about the show and not the actor and this actor has no notability outside the show. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I read your comment - I just don't agree with it. His death 30 years after the show stopped airing does not tie his death to the show just because they mention the show in obituaries. If he died while it was airing (for example) and it had an effect on the show that would tie it together. His death and funeral are outside the scope of the article. There may be a way to reword this section to include some of the information but sentences like Henry had moved to Midland, Michigan, with his wife Karen in 2013 so that they could be near their son. are just completely irrelevant. I am not happy to approve this with the content as is or with this hook. You are welcome to request another reviewer. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir.copic I posted on the DYK talk page for more thoughts. SL93 (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

As for the hook, I already posted three alts. SL93 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir.copic I have cut parts from the section and retitled it. SL93 (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that the host of Canyon Kid's Corner explained to children that he had a Brooklyn accent as a cowboy due to it coming "from the canyons created by the tall buildings in New York City"?

ALT1a: ... that the host of Canyon Kid's Corner quipped that his Brooklyn accent as a cowboy came from "the canyons created by the tall buildings"?

ALT2 ... that around 7,500 children appeared as guests on Canyon Kid's Corner in Sioux City, Iowa?

ALT3 ... that the children's series Canyon Kid's Corner in Sioux City, Iowa, helped launch the career of musician Tommy Bolin? SL93 (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, some of this prose is... a little awkwardly fit, but I'd argue that as it currently stands, everything meets a minimum requirement for relevancy. And hey – if there's a lot of information about Henry that doesn't fit into the article, maybe he's notable (even as a one-trick pony) after all? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron I feel like I need examples or a coach on why it's awkwardly written. For much of my life, I could tell years later that I was lied to about things I did including what I wrote. SL93 (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Relevancy concerns have been met now although all information about the tribute could summed up in one sentence. The quote in that section is extremely confusing seeing as you haven't explained that Old Timer is a puppet. I've now made edits to fix this. You still need to provide sources for the new hooks above. After the way you have spat out the dummy about my review here and at the talk page (tagging me something like 6 times in an hour), I don't want to engage with you any further. Another reviewer can deal with your shenanigans. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Fine, but those hooks have been sourced the entire time. SL93 (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Added an ALT1a for a bit of punchiness theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't want this to run anymore. SL93 (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's been bumpy, SL93, but at least we're almost there :) I wouldn't withdraw just yet, there'll be another reviewer along at some point. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm in a better mood now and I overreacted about having this withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the last series of posts, I see that all of the issues appear to have been fixed - by Vladimir.copic's own edit. He removed the quote, the bit about "Old Timer" and indeed reduced it to a single statement. That leaves the hook, and I think the proposed ALT1a is very strong. It is cited to the first ref, which I'll GF as the publishers apparently think their content is too important to allow snippets of on Google. All DYK requirements are otherwise fine: new enough, long enough, QPQ complete, no obvious copyvio. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)