Template:Did you know nominations/Fir Hill Manor

The following is an archived discussion of Fir Hill Manor's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

Fir Hill Manor[edit]

(

)

~~... that the Curse of Fir Hill Manor (1994) documents the search for absentee landlord, John Paget Figg-Hoblyn?~~

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/India-Kuwait relations

Created by Rosiestep (talk), Nvvchar (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 03:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Article is long enough and has been nominated for DYK within 5 days of initial creation. Inline citations used and the relevant fact is directed cited. However, the hook needs to be about Fir Hill Manor. Though the article does not have a clean-up template, there is a dispute on the Talk page which hasn't been resolved. To me, a new reader, the article is also tremendously confusing and I'd suggest the facts about the BBC documentary are separated into its own section. There seem to be all sorts of legal disputes which need to be very clearly explained. NB I'd attempt to re-write it myself but then I'd be unable to review this DYK. I'd try and suggest a more interesting hook if I could understand the story! Sionk (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible Alt1 ... that Fir Hill Manor was the subject of a BBC documentary in 1994, which documents the search for absentee landlord, John Paget Figg-Hoblyn?

ALT1 is fine with us.--Nvvchar. 08:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Need independent reviewer for ALT1; striking original hook for reasons given. New review should include whether issues raised in the original (i.e., "tremendously confusing") have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at rewriting the article. There are too many Figg-Hoblyn's and there were too many over-long, over-complex sentences trying to say too much without taking a breath! Hopefully it is now more suitable for Wikipedia's front page. Sionk (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to nominate this page for AFD unless someone could explain to me why it is notable. Does being the subject of a BBC documentary, and having a few English papers reporting on the story, qualify for WP:Notability (events)? Also, the page reads like a news story. Unless there is some kind of description of the house, this page just seems to be a recap of the BBC documentary. Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Article is now at AFD. Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

article out of AFD with a KEEP result. Needs new review.-- Esemono (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Soink's copy edit has cleared a lot of the redundancy and made the prose more brisk so I don't see any more confusion issues. The AfD has also settled notability concerns and I removed an old tags that was connected to the AfD and no longer valid. The article passes all other DYK criteria of date, length, QpQ and referencing with no signs of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. I am incline to pass it except that an IP (who seems to have a WP:COI with the subject) has raised issues about the accuracy of article on the talk page and stated that they plan to edit the article this week. That seems to point towards the article likely becoming unstable before it hits the front page. It would be helpful if the article's creators could address some of the IP's concerns and see which of them have merit or not so we can assured that the article won't be the subject of edit wars while it is on the front page. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 23:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

@Agne, I commented on the article's talkpage asking for the IP to state which sentences are uncontentious, and I suggested 14 days for them to respond. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Judging by their lengthy response, they seem to have an issue with the content of the Daily Mail article, rather than the Wikipedia content. But yes, let's get to the bottom of the perceived problem first! Sionk (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It didn't look like the issue was with the article itself but I was concerned with the IP doing significant edits to the article and (likely) adding unsourced OR to support "their side" of the issue before or while it is on the Main Page. Honestly, I think 14 days is a bit generous. The IP has been involved with the article for nearly a month so it shouldn't be unfair to expect them to respond within a week. As I said before, the article passes all other criteria and Alt1 is good to go. Hopefully we won't have to wait 14 days in order to be confident that there won't be any stability issues arising from the IP. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we can be confident the article is stable now. Here you go! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 19:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)