Template:Did you know nominations/The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes[edit]
- ... that The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (pictured) was banned in the Soviet Union "for supposed occultism"?
- Reviewed: Alan Clark (businessman)
5x expanded by Harrias (talk). Self-nominated at 20:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC).
Expansion fine, citations fine, hook fact cited, QPQ done (though piggy-backed on an earlier review, no reason to suspect it wasn't done diligently), no copyvio or plagiarism, image is free but almost useless at DYK size (wooooo, Conan Doyle's Black Blob on a Blue Background!). The quote was a bit strange, presumably it is quoted to avoid plagiarising the BBC source, but it contextualizes the statement to appear as if "supposed occultism" rather than "occultism" was the reason it was banned (the Soviet authorities presumably didn't ban it on the grounds that they supposed it contained occultism without reading it). Therefore:
- ALT1 ... that The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (pictured) was banned in the Soviet Union for its alleged occultism?
- That will probably need somebody else to tick it now; I should have meddled with it in prep, but that's life. Belle (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, given it's more a grammatical correction than a new hook, I don't think there would be an issue with you still approving it, but I'll leave it to your judgement. Harrias talk 05:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I always think it is silly to need it to be reticked when at least two people are going to look at again anyway. Let's try passing it and if anybody disagrees I'll take them outside (not for smooching; I have two thugs waiting in the alley to bundle the objector into a car and drive them out of town). Belle (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, given it's more a grammatical correction than a new hook, I don't think there would be an issue with you still approving it, but I'll leave it to your judgement. Harrias talk 05:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
