- 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 PFHLai (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
1906 (novel)
edit- ... that the James Dalessandro's 2004 novel 1906 was based upon the 1998 screenplay he wrote about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake for a film by the same name?
- Reviewed: Frankie Owen
Created/expanded by MichaelQSchmidt (talk). Self nom at 08:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
QPQ done. Hook is (PLEASE FOR ONCE LET ME HAVE THIS RIGHT WITHOUT MANDRAX FIXING IT!) properly formatted. Article is new enough and long enough at time of nomination: "Article moved from User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/1906 (novel) on July 11, 2012. Prose size (text only): 9252 characters (1503 words) "readable prose size"" Cover image has a fair use rationale. Other image has acceptable copyright (and is featured). I'm leaning more towards neutral though article does come across like a fan wrote it despite this. Not against policy... so good on neutrality. 1998 part checks out and appears support by sources (in the lead). Film part also found in article and supported by sources. Plagiarism spotcheck [1][2][3] no cause for concerns. Hook is neutral enough.
Almost fully supported by inline citations where required by MOS.
One little fact tag and good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: there is much potential for a good April Fools Day hook here if the nominator is so inclined. For example: ... that 1906 has been described as "imaginative and dense"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing problems resolved. Not a real fan of the alt kind of mentioned. Good to go unless nominator wants an alt. If no comment, then yes, just move it. :P --LauraHale (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Though there is the possibility of a funny April's Fools hook, I prefer it go as is rather than wait 9 months. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)