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 Espresso Addict (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewer instructions Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count A Simple Word Counter Reviewers' template Find sources (notability) Hook length

John McClure (producer)[edit]

• ...that record producer John McClure kept his Grammy Awards in a box in his barn?

• Reviewed: Anna Kravtchenko

Created by Pigsonthewing (talk). Self nominated at 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC).

• New enough. Long enough. NPOV. Using Dup detector, no copyvios or close paraphrasing found. Heavily reliant on just one source, but it is a NYT obituary, and there is nothing controversial and it is not a BLP. The hook is good, and it is cited. QPQ needed. I tried to fix the link to the second ref, by adding the "http://", and this link to "examiner.com", gives the message, "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist." I'm not sure how best to deal with that, but it needs to be addressed. Edwardx (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the positive review, I've already asked that that URL be added to the "whitelist", and am waiting for an admin to act on that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • As DYKcheck says this article has only 1110 prose characters, I'm at a loss as to why it is called "long enough" in the original review, as it is quite far from that. In addition, Examiner.com is not a reliable source, and is very unlikely to be removed from the blacklist, so if this is intended for DYK, Andy Mabbett, I recommend removing the citation from the article and finding alternate sourcing. Finally, a QPQ is still required for this article, and should be supplied in a timely manner. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm a bit shocked that I wrote that it was long enough, when it clearly is not. My sincere apologies for that schoolboy error. Edwardx (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • My character count came out higher, but I've added even more. I'm still awaiting a response at the whitelist page, and have posted a nudge there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a no from me I'm afraid. Still under 1300 characters of prose, so not long enough, and padding "300" to "three hundred" is kind of gaming the system. QPQ still not done. In all honesty you are better off finding an alternative source than trying to get examiner.com off the blacklist - as WP:V states, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." However, the hook itself is cited to the New York Times, so that bit's okay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What tool are you using to count the characters? What parts of the page are you counting? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I use User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, which (AFAIK) is the recommended tool as specified in the DYK rules. I get : File size: 41 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 3571 B, References (including all HTML code): 512 B, Wiki text: 4342 B, Prose size (text only): 1291 B (216 words) "readable prose size", References (text only): 24 B. "Readable prose size" is the figure used for DYK. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I added some more material from the NYT article and rendered the awards list into a narrative format, which is preferred anyway. Javascript says it's a 2328 now. Andy: hope I wasn't too WP:BOLD to do all that. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I see the advice has been to avoid examiner.com and an alternative source was supplied. I have used this in the article, so the questionable source is no longer referenced. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As I have actively worked on this article, a re-review is required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Almost ready to go (length check and sourcing were the only things outstanding, both of which were fixed, but I checked everything else too just because I'm dedicated/have nothing better to do). Still waiting on the QPQ review (don't think we've forgotten about it just because there's been a lot of chat, we have spies everywhere. Everywhere. They are probably watching you even now. Stop doing that, you'll go blind) Belle (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A quick spin through the contribs of pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) suggests a QPQ has actually been done, in which case this should be all good to go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

Then Andy Mabbett should stop by here and identify which QPQ goes with this nomination (this isn't the only nomination of his where a QPQ is still needed), so this can proceed. As nominator, it's his responsibility. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Belle, it looks like Ritchie333 added Andy's QPQ here. Did you want to check it out? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That's ready then (see my review above). Thanks to Richie333 and BlueMoonset for pointing out the QPQ. Belle (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)