- 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) 05:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Dick
- ... that the delusion of Mr. Dick (pictured) went from a bull in a china-shop to King Charles' head?
- Reviewed: Fish kick
- Comment: I have more plans for expansion but need to get the nomination started during the 5x window. More anon.
5x expanded by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 23:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC).
Mr. Dick was not created, promoted to GA, or expanded 5x in the 7 days preceding this March 13 nomination. Given my understanding of the criteria, I don't see a way to move forward with this nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Dugan Murphy: The article was nominated on the 20th March but was put under the heading for the 13th. You see, the 13th is when the expansion started and WP:DYKNOM states "list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began".
- Here's an exact calculation using the WP:DYKCHECK tool.
- on 13 March 2021: Prose size (text only): 429 characters (75 words) "readable prose size"
- on 20 March 2021: Prose size (text only): 3311 characters (543 words) "readable prose size"
- So, it went from 429 to 3311 – an expansion of 7.7 times. Ok?
- Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Thank you for making that clear. This is my second DYK review.
Here's my review below.
| 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
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
My first reaction is that this hook doesn't make sense to someone like me who hasn't read the book, but I guess that's incentive to click on it. All I think is needed are citations for the block quote and the portrayals, unless there's a policy I'm not aware of exempting these cases. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Dugan Murphy: Thanks for the review. You're already doing well by using the {{DYK checklist}} as it took me much longer to discover that. Regarding your points
- I will make another pass through the article to add more citations and ensure that every quotation has one – this is specifically expected by WP:V.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "portrayals" but suppose that's the character descriptions so I'll make sure they are cited too
- I'm referring here to the section named "Portrayals." Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- The hook is deliberately perplexing to encourage click-through, as you say – it is supposed to be a hook, not a summary of the article. I'm not entirely happy with the wording as it's a bit of a mouthful and so will see if I can make it wittier and/or flow better.
- So, I'll ping you again in a day or two to take another look. More anon.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Great! Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Like Mr. Dick, I am easily distracted. Thanks for the reminder. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- The nomination is already over a month old, any article issues need to be resolved as soon as possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Please return to the nomination and address the remaining concerns, the nomination may be marked for closure if they are not resolved within a reasonable timeframe. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- My muse has stirred again and so I'm back on it. More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that the list of portrayals now has citations. I think the only issue now is that the block quote needs a citation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- You mean the quote in the Appearance section? That had in text attribution to the relevant chapter of David Copperfield and footnote #6 too. I've repeated footnote #6 but this is overciting IMO, as the quote obviously comes from the novel. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, the Appearance section is what I was talking about, but I see this is no longer an issue, so I think this review is done. I just updated my review above to reflect that all the issues I identified have been addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dugan Murphy, is this good to go? If so, can you please put the appropriate tick – {{subst:DYKtick}} for on-line hook sources or {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} for an offline hook sources – at the bottom and sign it? Thanks, MeegsC (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- The hook is cited with an in-line citation to an online source, which I checked, so I judge that this nomination review is complete and ready to proceed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
My first reaction is that this hook doesn't make sense to someone like me who hasn't read the book, but I guess that's incentive to click on it.