Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/A Scandal in Belgravia

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A Scandal in Belgravia

edit
(
)
  • Comment: I began the article, but I can't take credit for authoring most of it. The JPS did a lot of work on everything besides the plot, so if anyone deserves authorship credit, it is him. Blurb is pretty terrible, so if anyone wants to suggest a better one, please do. NW (Talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by The JPS (talk). Nominated by NuclearWarfare (talk) at 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


  • That would certainly work for me. I made one small grammar tweak to your proposed blurb. NW (Talk) 16:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The article has been reviewed. The technical requirements are met and the article seems adequately written and sourced. But the hook seems too long and clumsy. A simple improvement might be to cut to the chase leaving

Warden (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That would work, but I also would prefer JPS' hook. This one seems a bit boring. NW (Talk) 14:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sex sells better than music, I reckon. But my main concern is that these hooks are trying to say too much. The phrase "the first episode of the second series of BBC's Sherlock" seems too long and lumbering and the reader may succumb to Holmesian ennui before they reach the detail that makes the case interesting. The general advice is to keep hooks short and pithy as the idea is to grab the readers' attention. Leave some of the key details out so that they will want to know more and will then click through to the article. Here's a sample headline from the Guardian, which does the job well, IMO: "Sherlock is cheeky entertainment, insists BBC after nudity complaints". Warden (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sex does sell better than music, but it's frankly not as interesting, to me anyway. Once you get to the article, you find that all that's really there is a few complaints to the BBC and a blogger taking things way too seriously. I would prefer to stick with the music hook, perhaps replacing "the first episode of the second series of BBC's Sherlock" with "a Sherlock episode" for length. NW (Talk) 14:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with NW. I resent pandering to and condoning the Daily Mail's synthetic controversy by giving it attention on DYK. The JPStalk to me 13:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • After reading the article, I shared the concern about the synthetic nature of the nude scene controversy. However,from looking at the sources, I think the article misrepresents the nature of the criticism. People weren't criticizing the nudity so much as they were saying the nudity and related scenes were too raunchy to be shown before 9 pm. The violin hook is pretty good, but based on my reading of the sources, the nudity hook could read:
  • ALT3 ... that although "A Scandal in Belgravia", the first episode of the second series of Sherlock, was well-received by reviewers, the BBC got complaints for showing its nude scene too early in the evening?
If that hook is used, the article will need to be rewritten to indicate that the complaints were about the timing (not about the nude scene, per se). --Orlady (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Is "complaints 'relating to inappropriate scenes broadcast before the watershed'" clear enough that the timing was the issue, or...? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No, that is not sufficiently clear. "The watershed" seems to be a bit of jargon used in the UK, but it would not make sense to speakers of English outside the UK. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I just now edited the article to clarify the nature of the objections in the beginning of the paragraph about the objections. FWIW, the article Watershed (television) would lead a person to believe that the term "the watershed" is used for this purpose everywhere except the U.S., but I've never seen the term before -- and I also am unfamiliar with the term "safe harbor" that the article describes as having the same meaning in the U.S. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I hereby declare ALT3 to be good. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/A_Scandal_in_Belgravia&oldid=1022088967"