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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
No problems with time, size, hook length, cites, copyvio, DABs or external links. AGF for off-line source. Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I've looked to promoted this twice now, and each time I shy away because of the hook, which has a quote that isn't very interesting, and takes more attention than is desirable to decipher the meaning. (Also, I'm not sure why we should care about what The Academy says.) I'd like to suggest a completely different hook, that doesn't rely on reviews but on the author's best-known work and his comments on this one:
ALT1: ... that R. D. Blackmore, author of Lorna Doone, considered Erema his "most unlucky novel", in part because the public could not pronounce the title character's name?
If desired, the "author of Lorna Doone" clause can be stripped out; I thought it might catch more eyes. —BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I am fine with the alt, which looks superior to my suggestion. This does now need another reviewer, though. Thanks, Matty.007 08:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Reviewer needed for ALT1; striking original hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I was reviewing ALT1; however, I think attribution needs to be sorted out for the 'Plot' section as it seems to be a close copy of The Academy, a public domain source that will also distort the amount of readable prose. I'm going to ask Nikkimaria if they have time to have a look as this is beyond my level of ability. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't see The Academy in the public domain. Can you link me to it please? Thanks, Matty.007 16:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Matty, I can only see it in snippet view on google books but see the first column here , middle column here  and first column here . SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
How much of the plot is the same (sorry, my eyes went funny trying to read that)? Thanks, Matty.007 16:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I managed to read some of it, actually. Is the entire first paragraph the same? Matty.007 16:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks as if almost all (both paras) of the Plot section is from it. As it was published in 1877, it is Public Domain but attribution would have to be properly given and the character count taken from the readable prose tally. If the other quotes are also subtracted from the count it might leave enough 'new' text to meet 1500. Way past my skill level so that's why I've asked Nikkimaria for help. yes, it did funny things to my eyes as well! SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I have access to the whole source and can confirm that all of the Plot section is copied near-verbatim from that source. We don't need to subtract short quotes from character count, only long ones, so this is still over the minimum - just short of 2000 by my count. However, the plot section does need to be properly attributed (per Wikipedia:PLAG#Copying_material_from_free_sources) before this can be passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria, I've left a note on Matty's talk page - I'm fairly certain he's watching this though. I will finish the review once the attribution is done. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Article - created new on 16 September, so new enough at time of nomination; roughly 2333 characters of readable prose (excluding the attributed PD plot section), so long enough; neutral; at least one inline citation to every paragraph; no copy vios apparent; assessed as C class, so not a stub.
Hook ALT1 - within length criteria at 162 characters; correctly formatted; correctly cited/supported by ref #3 in 'title' section (AGF); and interesting.
QPQ not required as not a self nom.
Now seems to be sorted and ready to go. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Matty.007 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)