Template:Did you know nominations/The Fountainhead
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn because GA review was itself withdrawn/reverted by a new reviewer who didn't know how to conduct a GA review.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Fountainhead[edit]
- ... that Ayn Rand (pictured) found the title for her novel The Fountainhead, her first major success, in a thesaurus?
- Reviewed: Blewburton Hill
Improved to Good Article status by RL0919 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 11:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- The plot section has no sources. This might be ok if it's uncontroversial but the rape scene seems to be an issue. A quotation might help. - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
- Thank you for the super-fast review, before the article's author even got a chance to propose an ALT. Plots need no refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:WAF states "editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible. ... using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points." Andrew D. (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Added cite and quote as requested. RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently the reviewer did not understand how GA works and has withdrawn two recent reviews, including this one. I believe that makes this DYK nomination invalid, but I'm not sure what should be done with it. In any case, I'll leave the requested citation in place, so it is there if we get another shot at this. RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Added cite and quote as requested. RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the super-fast review, before the article's author even got a chance to propose an ALT. Plots need no refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The withdrawal of the GA review means that this no longer qualifies, alas. I contemplated doing the GA review myself. I have read through the article and it looks fine but I don't have sufficient easy access to the sources to be able to verify the citations. As the topic may be controversial and attract hostile attention, it seems better to be safe than sorry. In the spirit of the work, I suggest that RL0919 aim high and try for FA status instead. The article seems more substantial than the current FA – Hugh de Neville – and the FA process could use some fresh blood as it is failing to achieve the required rate of 1/day. I will put the article on my watchlist and attend any such developments. Andrew D. (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- RL0919, Gerda Arendt, the article can be nominated for DYK again once the article has been given a thorough, competent GA review and been listed as a GA, which may take a while (but I hope not too long). Sorry that this didn't work out. Since the GA nomination is still active, you cannot also submit an FAC. (You could withdraw the GAN and instead submit an FAC, but that means you lose your seniority at GAN.) I'm going to close this now as withdrawn. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)