A fact from Spare Time appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 April 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Humphrey Jennings's 1939 film Spare Time showed an American audience how the British working classes spent their free time?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Spare Time is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
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) 01:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
QPQ: - Not done Overall: Article requires further expansion and QPQ, but a solid start on a British classic. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted a purple "maybe" icon since the article does not appear to require considerable work before becoming eligible. Completely rejecting the nomination does not seem correct at this time. Flibirigit (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was probably what No Swan So Fine intended. I have the book needed to expand it (just received) and will work on it shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for any confusion. I've amended it to a 'maybe'. It'll certainly be fine after some minor work. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy, Edwardx, it has been three weeks since this nomination was reviewed and no edits have been made to the article since. If you are still interested in pursuing this nomination, please do the necessary work in the next seven days. That includes the missing QPQ. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just expanded it to push it over the limit. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, No Swan So Fine. I've just pinged Philafrenzy on their talk page, since the QPQ has still not been supplied and it's a month since the original review and ten days since my previous ping here. I do hope the QPQ is forthcoming, but I'm not willing to wait more than another seven days for it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I've donated a QPQ. I've cheekily added myself to the contributors after I expanded it, which was post my review. Take me out if you wish, though. Thanks for your patience. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Swan So Fine, since you increased the prose character count by nearly 70% and made the article eligible for DYK that was as well as supplying a QPQ review, I'd say you certainly should be added—I've also added a DYKmake credit for you. We'll need a new reviewer now that you're a contributor. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New reviewer needed to review the entire expanded article against the DYK criteria. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the hook fact is technically true, it's not explicitly mentioned in the article, which merely states that it was made for the New York World's Fair. Perhaps the hook could be revised to reflect that instead? Or perhaps another hook direction, such as a hook involving the "encapsulation" quote, could also be proposed as an alternative? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 01:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning behind the hook fact is clearly stated in the synopsis section of the film, but in different words. It's fine in my opinion. Article is long enough, new enough, well referenced, and within policy. Hook verified to the cited reference. This can be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]