Template:Did you know nominations/The Doll's Hospital
- 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 BorgQueen (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Doll's Hospital
- ... that the owners of The Doll's Hospital toyshop were the penultimate victims of the Acid Bath Murderer? Source: "It later emerged they had been the victims of the acid bath murderer, John George Haigh, a notorious serial-killer who dissolved his victim’s bodies in barrels of concentrated sulphuric acid." [1]
Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Doll's Hospital; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Article falls short of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Specifically it is based on just two sources: a caption on a Shutterstock photo and a Wordpress article. According to WP:BLOG we should be cautious about using blogs as a reliable source at all, let alone as the sole support for the substance of the article. The blog post appears to be original research based on secondary sources; if some of those sources can be tracked down and included as support for the article, and if the article is brought up to style guideline standards, perhaps this may be worth reconsidering.Oblivy (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, Oblivy. The deadline was looming and I was tired. It is now over 1500 characters and has two more sources. As for the blog, it is the official blog of LBHF Libraries and Archives, with a named author, Lauren Romano, so I think we can reasonably consider it to be a reliable source. There are plenty of good sources about Haigh and his murders, but decent sources specifically about The Doll's Hospital are harder to find. I will dig around some more later today, and do a QPQ review. Edwardx (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wasn't looking for an apology, just trying to make some constructive criticism of the article without being too discouraging. The article is better now - more focused on the shop and less on the murders. Some headings would help.
- You may like this: it's a published article from Ms. Romano which overcomes the "blog" issue.[2] Also, on the blog there's a gripe from a guy named Michael Volpe who she quoted his "book" without attribution; in the article she quotes his blog. Could be this? [3] Good luck with the article.Oblivy (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wasn't looking for an apology, just trying to make some constructive criticism of the article without being too discouraging. The article is better now - more focused on the shop and less on the murders. Some headings would help.
- I just did a big cleanup and mild expansion of this article. I think it should be OK now but from what I can tell the Hendersons owned the *building* while a series of artisans owned the actual Doll Hospital business. Source for their ownership of the building should be here on page 74. https://books.google.com/books?id=xmVtBQAAQBAJ&dq=erren%2C+rudolph+arnold&pg=PA70#v=onepage&q&f=true
If I may suggest an Alt2:
- ... that the owners of The Doll's Hospital building were the penultimate victims of the Acid Bath Murderer?
All that said I should not review for DYK bc I edited so **this still needs a reviewer** jengod (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
First, good job on substantially improving the article. I was a minor editor as well, so I'm not in a position to review even if I knew how. However I ran WP:DYKCHECK on this and it doesn't qualify for substantially expanded. Not sure how far short it falls but it's not 5x text expanded in the last 7 days.Oblivy (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Per the series of issues itemized above: [DELETED X ICON WAS HERE]
jengod (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Oblivy and Jengod: When you said it hasn't been a 5x expansion, did you mean as of April 18, or as of March 27? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 I think Oblivy's machine was probably tracking from April 18. I suspect it qualifies as from being launched on March 27. But it also needs a QPQ? jengod (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- As I understand the criteria, there's a 7-day window in which the article text needs to have been expanded to 5x its size. So based on my 18 April date, probably counting from 11 April. I'm not at all expert in this so I could be wrong, I'm just interpreting the policy.Oblivy (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Oblivy: The 7-day window counts not on from day of the review, but from the date of the nomination. This means that 5x expansion should have been checked from March 27; that is, if a 5x expansion was done by March 27. Also, @Edwardx: This nomination still needs a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- The article was created on March 20, and achieved the minimum required 1500 characters on March 28, one day beyond the seven days past creation. Per WP:DYKSG#D9, an extension of a day or two is effectively automatic (Edwardx's first reply on March 28 counts as a tacit extension request). There is no need to bring in a 5x expansion, since the article qualified as new and long enough on March 28. That qualification stays true no matter how long the nomination is open and under consideration. However, the QPQ is badly delayed, and was promised on March 28 and due within seven days (April 4), so Edwardx should be aware that this nomination could be closed at any time until the QPQ is provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset. I have started a QPQ review, but might not finish until the morning. Edwardx (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- QPQ now finished. Edwardx (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- The article was created on March 20, and achieved the minimum required 1500 characters on March 28, one day beyond the seven days past creation. Per WP:DYKSG#D9, an extension of a day or two is effectively automatic (Edwardx's first reply on March 28 counts as a tacit extension request). There is no need to bring in a 5x expansion, since the article qualified as new and long enough on March 28. That qualification stays true no matter how long the nomination is open and under consideration. However, the QPQ is badly delayed, and was promised on March 28 and due within seven days (April 4), so Edwardx should be aware that this nomination could be closed at any time until the QPQ is provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Oblivy: The 7-day window counts not on from day of the review, but from the date of the nomination. This means that 5x expansion should have been checked from March 27; that is, if a 5x expansion was done by March 27. Also, @Edwardx: This nomination still needs a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- As I understand the criteria, there's a 7-day window in which the article text needs to have been expanded to 5x its size. So based on my 18 April date, probably counting from 11 April. I'm not at all expert in this so I could be wrong, I'm just interpreting the policy.Oblivy (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 I think Oblivy's machine was probably tracking from April 18. I suspect it qualifies as from being launched on March 27. But it also needs a QPQ? jengod (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- If anyone is looking for a DYK for their QPQ, I believe this one is open and ready. jengod (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer needed now that QPQ has been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This review is for ALT2:
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
With all the work and partial reviews done so far, this was an easy review! I agree that one or two days of leeway are acceptable. And a general comment to improve this article (not related to DYK): add a photo of the building itself if it still exists or a fair-use one otherwise; the big photo of the murderer is merely incidental to the topic. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)