- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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) 14:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Strange Son
edit- ...
that Portia Iverson's book about autism Strange Son is slated for a film adaptation?
- Reviewed: Urocyon progressus
Created by Joe Chill (talk). Self nom at 21:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Long enough article, short enough hook, referenced, sufficiently new. Good to go.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I have a few concerns about this:
- A hook stating that a book is being made into a movie is fairly mundane.
- The source saying it's being made into a movie is from 2005. If there's nothing more recent about this, it may be safe to assume that it's been shelved or dropped.
- The 2007 source with the Julia Roberts quote merely says that the book was optioned for a movie, which is a very different (lesser) thing. That just means that someone has bought the rights to make a movie, but not that such a movie is going to be made.
- Blogcritics is not necessarily a reliable source.
- I can look past the use of Blogcritics, since the article specifically attributes the review, but at the very least, I'd like to see a different hook: one that's both more interesting and has better sourcing. cmadler (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- ... that Portia Iverson's book Strange Son documents how she invited a mother and the mother's autistic son from India to California to help Portia's son communicate? I am going to completely ignore you on the Blogcritics point since I have seen it help save articles in AfD. If you call this mundane, I don't care considering I find it interesting and what is considered interesting to people varies. Joe Chill (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- The new hook is better, though it needs rewording, since too many ambiguous pronouns ("she", "her", and "her" referring to two different women) make it hard to parse. But I think the "Film" section of the article still needs to be reworked or removed. cmadler (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I reworded the hook and removed the film section. Joe Chill (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I still think it's a little awkward, but my concerns have been adequately addressed. cmadler (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- In response to this talk page comment by Crisco 1492, I don't think it's appropriate for me to leave a tick, having not conducted a full point-by-point review. Epeefleche claims to have done that. I had certain specific concerns, which have been addressed; I no longer have any objection to this being promoted, but having not given it a full review for all required points, I'm not approving it myself. cmadler (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- I still think it's a little awkward, but my concerns have been adequately addressed. cmadler (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I reworded the hook and removed the film section. Joe Chill (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have double checked the article and can confirm that it meets DYK standards. As Cmadler "no longer have any objection to this being promoted", I think this can be promoted. Paraphrasing check looks fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)