Talk:Out of the Blue (book)

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Liz Truss's biographers had to rewrite their upcoming book about her rise to power after her early resignation as prime minister? Source: "Liz Truss Biographers Are 'Back to the Rewrites' After Prime Minister Quits"
  • ALT1: ... that Liz Truss's rise to power went from "astonishing" to "explosive" a day before she resigned as prime minister? Source: "Upcoming Liz Truss biography gets a name change to reflect her woes"
  • ALT2: ... that the authors of the book on Liz Truss's rise to power had to go "back to the rewrites" after she resigned as prime minister? Source: "Liz Truss Biographers Are 'Back to the Rewrites' After Prime Minister Quits"
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Janowar
  • Comment: Equal preference between ALT0 and ALT1. ALT2, a slightly tweaked suggestion from theleekycauldron, is fine too.

Created by Tamzin (talk). Self-nominated at 22:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC).

• . Alt1 is my first choice, but all three are acceptable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Compassionate727: While DYK reviews don't per se need to cover the main DYK criteria, "check mark" reviews wouldn't count as QPQs per WP:DYK#gen5b. I'll be honest, I just learned of this loophole while writing this comment, so I'll bring this up at WT:DYK – in the mean time, would you mind spelling out the review for me? Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    • @Theleekycauldron: For some reason, I laughed when I read this; not sure what I found so amusing, but thanks for that. At any rate, I don't have any pending DYK nominations, so it doesn't need to satisfy QPQ; I just wound up on the talk page and decided I could take care of this. But if it helps, sure: sourcing looks fine, article is long and new enough, no NPOV or copyvio concerns, all the hooks are short enough and supported by the sources, no images to worry about; anything else I'm forgetting? I've never done one of these before. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
      • that's about all of it, thanks! There's always the {{DYK checklist}} to help you out, if ya need it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• @Compassionate727: FYI I've changed ALT1 slightly, as I'd misread the timing of the retitle vs. resignation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: Oops, good catch. I would suggest replacing the colloquial "right before" with "shortly before" or just "before," but other than that, it looks fine, and is still my first choice. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: How about "the day before"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: I like that. Might be reading into the source just a little more than it actually says, but for a hook, I don't think it matters enough. I'll approve it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

to GA

Probably the most glaring hole in the article, as we've left it, is that the back half of the book's contents are missing. This is because, I kid you not, neither of us have actually read the book. The reason the book reviews don't cover what's in the back half is because at the time they were published, pretty much everyone knew what that back half looked like, as it was fresh off of Liz Truss resigning after a very short period as PM. Other than that (which can be sourced to the book itself, under the circumstances), more critical review and analysis is probably needed for GA status. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)