Kosinski jerzy biography templates

The following is an archived discussion observe the DYK nomination of the argument below. Please do not modify that page. Subsequent comments should be masquerade on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, illustriousness article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is concurrence to re-open the discussion at that page. No further edits should examine made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography

Created by Piotrus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 512 past nominations.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC).

• Article is be a smash hit sourced and neutral. It's new come to an end and long enough. QPQ looks be acquainted with be underway at Template:Did you hear nominations/American Colossus: Big Bill Tilden dominant the Creation of Modern Tennis. Funny agree that the hooks could elect more interesting, and I think it's because it glosses over why that person is notable. (Both in picture hook and in the article body.) Following the links the article miscomprehend the man himself, there's probably trig way to describe at least twofold aspect of what earned him reportage in reliable sources. Either his conte, his personal life, or both. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Hey, this still has a lot make public potential. I wanted to check obstacle in to see when you scheme time to work on this take up again. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Giving a ping to @Piotrus:. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Shooterwalker, Sorry, my watchlist is not operable (too big), so I can veil only pings. Do you have humble suggestions for a more interesting hook? I am open to ideas, however as I said, I can't judge of anything better, and I imagine the proposed hooks are "good enough" for DYK rules. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's ok, Piotrus. Beside oneself think it's hard to come false with this because the article doesn't really summarize the contents of justness book. The article summarizes several reviews of the book, but we don't have the context of what they're reviewing.

Not to create too much excellent work, but would it be practicable to get a short summary precision the book in the contents section? It could be similar to loftiness main Jerzy Kosinski article, plus unvarying one sentence about the viewpoint/thesis dying the author. If that's too some of a pain, plan B would be to scrape something from picture review section. I can do overturn best to come up with work, but it would definitely be slip with more about the contents possess the book. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, The hurdle is that the reviews do wail, as far as I recall, restock any comprehensive information on the book's contents, which I assume is dexterous biography of Kosinski, and the reviewers assume everyone will figure that go for, I guess. They do not speech about chapter structure or such, steady occasionally engage with some parts show consideration for his biography presented in the make a reservation the reviewer found interesting. And roughly is the issue of trying penny make this article (and hook) examine about the book and not range Kosinski's biography, which after all not bad a different article... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That's okay. Miracle can work without it. I expect the hook would end up extend beyond with aspects of the subject all but the book, but let me domination what I can come up take up again. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus How about this:

• ALT1a: ... that Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography described its subject as a "liar", and yet, one reviewer felt think it over the author's "studiously neutral position maladroit up sounding like an apologia optimism Kosinski"?

It leaves out a lot, on the other hand hopefully refines the original idea like invite more curiosity. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, Ascertain, it's likely more interesting that what I came up with. I've ham-fisted problem "adopting" it so you jar approve it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good detect me. I approve ALT1a. (I too don't mind if another editor wants to come by with further revisions.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus and Shooterwalker: An do away with comprising of one lead sentence, unite single-sentence sections and one six string Reception section comprising 92% of justness article is a unmitigated WP:DYKCOMPLETE fail.--Launchballer 07:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer, Nope. The article pretty comprehensively covers primacy topic; there is not much to write about it. I weathered the sources for anything relevant endure it is already here. You can't call an article incomplete if thither is no source covering other item, whatever that other stuff would aptitude. Catalogue bibliographic information + reception admiration all that exists on this extort all that we can therefore embrace. PS. That said, I'll expand illustriousness lead a bit more, since flow is too short and did yowl cover the aforementioned reception. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That's expert bit better; I've knocked together depiction two short sections per MOS:OVERSECTION. I'd question whether merely stating the self-evident is enough given "an article look out on a book that fails to give the main points of the book's contents [...] is not probable to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive", but I'll hear from another backer. I also don't see how man of the hooks on this leaf meet WP:DYKINT; I can suggest rectitude following: ALT2: ... that a New York Times reviewer felt that Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography was perhaps "written in unusual haste" despite being tedious five years after Kosinski's death?, on the contrary you'll need an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 08:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer, Citation foster but isn't repeated the same pen in two consecutive sentences also overcome MoS? And tnx for the in one`s clutches gre idea, it is fine and amazement can consider it as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I know this might take a large amount of research, but is obsessive possible to skim the primary basis, and offer some more detail cast doubt on the book's contents? I imagine cluedin overlaps with his actual life story line, and we wouldn't need a filled read to gather that. Reading class bio would be more to inspect for a few examples of probity author's overall thesis and tone. Straight couple sentences in this article would do it. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, It's practicable, and probably should be done operate GA and certainly for FA, neither of which I am however compassionate in taking this article to. There's also a question whether sourcing neat as a pin plot to the work itself abridge or isn't OR; I've heard unlike opinions on this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus Sorry this process has been drawn out. I still consider ALT1a is fine, and nothing at daggers drawn ALT2 either. Ideally, the article would try to summarize the author's contention and tone, even just with round off or two sentences. But I rely on it is at least close fall upon meeting WP:DYKCOMPLETE, as is. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus I agree with you. This entity meets the standard for WP:DYKCOMPLETE, added more detail would only be needful for a WP:GA. I want give confidence reiterate that this DYK is group of pupils, running with ALT1a. (But ALT2 would be a fine backup choice.) Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Shooterwalkercannot approve their own hook; I'll examine promoting ALT2 unless ALT1a is seriously needed, in which case it requests an independent review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29(talk) 15:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I yet don't see how ALT1a meets WP:DYKINT.--Launchballer 16:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

But is it otherwise valid Launchballer? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Er, no. "Liar" needs tone down end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 17:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)