Talk:Roddie Fleming

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 SL93 (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Roddie Fleming's daughter has "accelerated forgetting" amnesia, and can only remember her last six months? Source: "Hum has a type of amnesia officially called ‘accelerated forgetting’: she is unable to consolidate memory long-term and can only ever remember the last six months of her life." https://www.tatler.com/article/paradise-lost-hum-fleming-has-everything-apart-from-a-memory
  • Reviewed: William Buchanan (locomotive designer)

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 22:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC).

• Review follows: This article is new enough and just barely long enough. I do not see any policy issues, copyvio check came back clean. The hook is short enough and cited. However, I cannot approve it for two reasons. First, it is not actually about the subject at all. Secondly, it fails the criterion "neutral and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people". QPQ is not done. Nominator, you will need to supply another hook or this nomination will unfortunately have to be failed. I will give you one week to do this before failing the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• putting this on hold instead, and striking the original hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• @Trainsandotherthings: how about:
  • ALT1: ... that Roddie Fleming was expecting to inherit the family business, but it was sold to Chase Bank instead?
• let me know; I'm also happy to provide a QPQ if necessary. Also, in general, you don't want to use {{subst:DYKno}} unless the nomination is ready to be closed; if there are fixable issues, it's best practice to use {{subst:DYK?no}} or {{subst:DYK?}} . theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that hook would be ok, but the nominator has yet to provide a QPQ. If you'd like to provide a QPQ instead then this can move forward. And noted about the symbol. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Awesome. Pinging Edwardx to see if they'll provide the QPQ first. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• • Edwardx? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

    For whatever reason, Edwardx has been active even today but has ignored at least 4 pings and talk page messages regarding this DYK. I've half a mind to suggest they shouldn't be given credit considering they refuse to do anything to help their nomination along, yet are [1] adding more DYKNs today (with no QPQ done, again). Quite poor behavior. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    • Yeah, I can't think of a reasonable explanation for that. I'm not inclined to donate a QPQ under these circumstances. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm officially failing this nomination now. Very disappointed in the behavior of the nominator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• My humble apologies, theleekycauldron and Trainsandotherthings. I was planning on doing the DYK this morning, and have now done one. Edwardx (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you for this useful expansion. We always need public domain information about what these rich business people are up to. I'm reviewing this nom to move it forward after all the hiccups. (Note: I have no disagreement with the above comments, and I'm just doing a fresh review to familiarise myself with the article.)

• The article has 1460 characters; please expand to 1,500 or more?

When that is done, this nom should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you, Storye book. Just expanded to 1571 characters. Edwardx (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Edwardx, and peace and love to all above contributors. Good to go, with ALT1. Storye book (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Edwardx! In the future, it's always good to give a heads-up that you're working on the QPQ just to avoid miscommunications like this. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Quite agree, theleekycauldron. With Wikipedia, as with life in general, good communication is key. Edwardx (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)