Template:Did you know nominations/Renfrew Mercury

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 Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Renfrew Mercury

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Robertson Davies' first published work was an article in the Renfrew Mercury, his dad's newspaper, at age nine?

• Reviewed: Will Middlebrooks

Created/expanded by Zanimum (talk). Self nom at 19:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• An interesting beginning on this newspaper article. It's wonderful how so many old newspapers are available on line now. Although the article is newly moved from userspace and has over 1500 characters according to DYKcheck (2848 prose characters in all), however, there are significant issues that need to be addressed before this can pass.

• Although its length is fine, the hook itself is problematic. The source doesn't say "first published work" on page 18. Page 20 does say he wrote an article when he was nine and was paid 25 cents for it, so he was a professionally published newspaper article writer at that age. He may have written earlier; he was five going on six in May 1919. The odds are that his first published work was for the paper, but the cited source doesn't say that. Further, his first work for the paper may not have been an article but something else entirely. The hook must not present information that the source cannot substantiate.
• The article skips over huge periods of time. Gaps need to be filled in. 1930 to pre-1964, post-1964 merger to 2005.
• Sections of the article are stublike, and are unsourced. The Hilda Flood section cannot stand as it is.
• The History section is confusing at the start, because it gives the Smallfield ownership and then goes off into other info. I'd recommend having a Smallfield subsection like you do for all the other eras, which mentions that Smallfield became best known for his local history, etc. Oddly, it says Campbell dies in 1907, yet continues working on the book until 1919? Something needs correcting.
• You mention the merger with the Advance, and footnote it, but don't give a date or who ended up owning it.
• From Mercury-Advance, the next thing mentioned is Rundge selling to Metroland. (Another gap.)
• At some point, the Mercury-Advance becomes the Mercury again. Since this is an article about the Mercury, that step is very important.

Fortunately, the pre-1972 information is available from your sources: in particular, the December 1, 1971, issue of the Mercury-Advance goes into great detail on the history of both papers, with many articles in it. Just glancing through, I noticed pages that mentioned when Hilda Flood took over from Sayles, and so on. You don't have to go into great detail on any of this, but you do need to include it. I think I saw mention of seven "eras", with the Mercury-Advance presumably being the seventh. If we know of Smallfield, Davies, Sayles, Flood, Wilson, and Mercury-Advance, there's another one missing unless two of these have an overlap period that counts as number seven. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

With recent additions, I think the article is adequately sourced for DYK. I couldn't find support for the "first published work" bit, but there is solid support for the idea behind the hook. Here's proposed alternative wording:

• ALT1 ... that at age nine, Robertson Davies was paid for writing an article published in the Renfrew Mercury, his father's newspaper? --Orlady (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Orlady, I'm sorry, but no. Sourcing was far from the only objection. I don't believe I was unreasonable in requesting that more be filled in, and I've been monitoring the review and discussing matters on Zanimum's talk page. It is absurd to leave the Frood section (who I called "Flood" above; my error) as it is when the information is available from a source, as I noted. Are you overruling my review? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not disagreeing with the validity of your comments, but it seems to me that this article is a legitimate "start"-quality article that is plenty good enough for DYK. Regarding the uncited Frood section, before I commented here I had added a citation to that section, citing that December 1971 newspaper article -- which documents her death in 1964 and the subsequent sale of the paper. --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I saw the citation, but thought the section itself was stublike whether with a reference or without it. However, now that I've pulled the partial date from its header and the next section header (which implied that Wilson still owned the paper), those sections are less problematic. I'll bow to your greater experience in judging article quality for DYK. I have struck the original hook since neither of us can find support for "first published work". I'd like to see that Renfrew Mercury Weekender factoid sourced or removed before this is approved, however. I did add the word "writing" to your proposed ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Approving the article: I removed the factoid myself, since that was all that was standing in the way of approval. When a source citation is found, it can be reinserted, though more detail would be preferable. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)