- The following discussion 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 Froggerlaura ribbit 04:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Peter Chao
edit- ... that YouTube personality Peter Chao was forced to study in Canada by his "prostitute mother"?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lee Toland Krieger
- Comment: Recently moved to main space
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nom at 10:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Still a bit on the short side - it's below the minimum 1,500 character limit (it scrapes past if you include spaces, but not by much). It's certainly new enough, and the hook looks alright to me (although I'd classify him as a "fictional YouTube personality", for clarity). The citation for the hook verifies it and meets the basic standards for a reliable source, and the article as a whole conforms to the usual inclusion guidelines. The length is my only concern; another paragraph or two and it would pass with no problem. Yunshui 雲水 10:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Aww... Then why not count the spaces? Nevermind, work in progress. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
done? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, checks out. Approved for DYK. Yunshui 雲水 12:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks,
YunshuiUnshui [sic] To add to your mispellings list :) Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks,
I'm rather concerned that the hook may violate WP:BLP, as we shouldn't willy-nilly call someone a prostitute (or quote someone else calling someone a prostitute). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- A valid point, but since the mother in question is (like Chao) entirely fictitious, I don't see that being an issue. Yunshui 雲水 23:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Alright. While we're here could we trim back the quotes? It looks very cramped. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Couldn't hurt; there are quite a lot of them. I'd also (having just looked at the page again in the light of Crisco's comments) recommend using Tong's name instead of Chao's when discussing his work and the reaction to it - indeed, there's a case to be made for renaming the entire article "David Tong"... Yunshui 雲水 00:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Yoonshwi [sic]. I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction applies here, so we should keep a real world perspective at all times. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed; dammit, I was about to go to bed, too! Don't suppose you fancy handling it, Crisco? Yunshui 雲水 00:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers. Barnstar for you in the morning. Bed now. *yawn* Yunshui 雲水 00:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done rewriting, readable prose size went up by 600 characters for some reason. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers. Barnstar for you in the morning. Bed now. *yawn* Yunshui 雲水 00:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed; dammit, I was about to go to bed, too! Don't suppose you fancy handling it, Crisco? Yunshui 雲水 00:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Couldn't hurt; there are quite a lot of them. I'd also (having just looked at the page again in the light of Crisco's comments) recommend using Tong's name instead of Chao's when discussing his work and the reaction to it - indeed, there's a case to be made for renaming the entire article "David Tong"... Yunshui 雲水 00:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- A valid point, but since the mother in question is (like Chao) entirely fictitious, I don't see that being an issue. Yunshui 雲水 23:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- This still needs a tick, and I'm probably too involved to give it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Although Crisco asked me to see if I might supply the tick, I'm completely unwilling to approve an article that takes a phrase about Chao (from FN2) with a "what he isn't" context (referring to David Duke) and turns it into the sentence "Straight.com compares Chao with the likes of former Ku Klux Klan member David Duke" in the Reception section, which strongly implies that they think Chao is like Duke when in fact they're doing the exact opposite. The Reception section starts out oddly with the phrase "mixed criticism", which to me means he's been criticized by everyone with varying levels of negative comment. Based on what's been quoted in the remainder of the section, it looks to me like the opinions are wide ranging, from quite positive to very negative. The second sentence has the disputable (and unnecessary) use of the word "temporarily", since at least one of the sources (FN3) calls the suspension "indefinite", though it ultimately ended after 14 days. It might be helpful to give the name of the video that caused the suspension, and when it happened (the information is in the sources). As a matter of style, I'm unhappy with the consistent attributions to newspapers and websites rather than to the actual authors of the piece (i.e., "straight.com" rather than "Mike Usinger of straight.com"), and think this should be consistently fixed throughout, though I wouldn't withhold approval if this were the only issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've reworded two of them, will check the references later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty sure I got everything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The key issues have all been addressed; restoring approval per that and earlier reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)