Template:Did you know nominations/Marina Kondratyeva2

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 Launchballer talk 12:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewer instructions Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count A Simple Word Counter Reviewers' template Find sources (notability) Hook length

• ... that when Marina Kondratyeva appeared as Giselle (pictured) with the Bolshoi Ballet at the Metropolitan Opera in 1962, the headline of the New York Times said that she excelled in the title role? Source: [1]
  • Reviewed: Hotel Marseilles
  • Comment: there was a previous failed nom

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• A new hook will probably be needed here as the current hook probably does not meet WP:DYKINT. The rationale is the same as the previous nomination: the hook is too complicated, has too many details, and is not a spectacular hook. My suggestion would probably to re-propose ALT1 and ALT4 from the original nomination due to meeting the guidelines better (much more direct to the point, thus meeting WP:DYKTRIM). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  How about leaving the review to someone else? Perhaps not everybody will agree with you about being mentioned in a headline of the NYT, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the hook does arguably fail both DYKINT and DYKTRIM. Yes the NYT is prestigious, but a hook about a person being praised for doing their job doesn't really work as a hooky hook. It would be like having a hook on DYK saying "DYK that Lionel Messi was praised in the press for his performance during the World Cup final?" Yes a good accomplishment, but not necessarily what DYK is looking for. The other, probably more salient point here, is DYKTRIM: the hooks has several details that may distract from the main point of the hook (that she was praised for her role). DYKTRIM states don't be afraid to trim hooks of extraneous information and clauses. Even if DYKINT is subjective, DYKTRIM is less so. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

For example, ALT0 could be simplified to simply "... that a New York Times headline praised Marina Kondratyeva's 1962 performance of Giselle with the Bolshoi Ballet?" Mostly the same idea but a lot shorter per WP:DYKTRIM. I'm still not a fan of that specific angle, but if you really want to go with that one, said wording may meet the guidelines better than the original. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You are free to improve the hook, and I like the direction, but ALT0 could still play in Moscow, and the appearance of the complete Russian troupe on New York's most prestigious stage during the Cold War, which I found surprising to put it mildly, would be lost. Minor issues: I try to have the bolded subject in front, and not as a possessive, and I feel that "NYT headline" might be too sloppy for the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think ALT0 is going to work out or meet the guidelines, so I've struck it. I'm reproposing two of the hooks from the previous nomination below and offering them as options:

ALT0a that a New York Times headline praised Marina Kondratyeva's (pictured) 1962 performance of Giselle with the Bolshoi Ballet?

ALT1 ... that ballerina Marina Kondratyeva (pictured) was said to be "weightless, airy, poetic and spiritual"?

ALT2 ... that ballerina Marina Kondratyeva (pictured) served the Bolshoi Ballet and its school for over 70 years?

Is this okay with you, as a compromise? The choice in hook could be left to a different reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: How about leaving the review to someone else? Remember? ALT0a: there's still no clue that this played in New York City (not Moscow), and not she is pictured, but she in the role. ALT1: That she appears as weightless and airy is well captured in the image, - no need to say it in quoted words. That she is a ballerina is also clearly visible. ALT2: The sheer length of time served doesn't say a word about that she was top both dancing and training, let alone being the chosen one for a U.S. tour.

ALT0b: ... that when Marina Kondratyeva appeared as Giselle (pictured) with the Bolshoi Ballet at the Metropolitan Opera in 1962, she was praised in the headline of the New York Times?

ALT0c: ... that when Marina Kondratyeva appeared with the Bolshoi Ballet at the Metropolitan Opera in 1962, the headline of the New York Times said that she excelled as Giselle (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is WP:DYKTRIM and the hooks you proposed arguably do not meet it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question directly: I already offered to let someone else review the nomination if you agreed to ALT0a, since it met DYKTRIM. Given I technically proposed ALT1 and ALT2, I couldn't have reviewed the nomination anyway (nor can Storye book since those were originally her proposals). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Floq, what do you think? I pinged you before to just take notice, but since, N. struck two more hooks that I believe are concise enough, and trimming further would reduce information. We claim "did you know", - saying that a ballerina was described as weightless is not passing knowledge, nor that someone served a notable organization for 70 years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

With the caveats that (a) I'm not terribly familiar with the social mores of DYK, and (b) I'm responding to a ping, so I'm not uninvolved:

• If I recall correctly, NLH brought GA to ANI because they felt GA's blurbs were routinely too long and not interesting. And received really strong negative feeback for doing so. It seems suboptimal for NLH to continue to review GA's blurbs and complain they are too long and not interesting. Surely there are enough reviewers for someone else to review?
• Interesting, in particular, is in the eye of the beholder, and NLH received feedback that their eye does not seem to match the overall DYK community.
• It appears a hook should be around 150-160 characters, with an absolute max of 200. This one is 163 or 195 (not sure if you folks count spaces). That seems within range if DYK typically doesn't count spaces, and maybe in need of a trim if DYK usually does.
• Since I'm semi-involved, I won't try to propose a shorter hook myself. The current one doesn't seem confusing, though, which I would think is more important than simple length.
• There might be other things I'm not aware of, so if I've ignored something the DYK community considers important, take this with a grain of salt.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I believe that NLH was at ANI to ask for sanctions against Gerda, not to receive feedback on the hooks themselves. I remember a couple of times Gerda has asked at WT:DYK for opinions on "interestingness" of the hooks she favours—the response, I believe, can fairly be characterised as "uniformly negative". This discussion was the first to come to mind. On the other points, I agree with the first, disagree for the third—as short as possible is best, most are around 100—and am neutral on the fourth. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam, Unfortunately, Gerda is a challenging editor to work with productively at DYK review. She has a reputation at DYK for not receiving feedback well and exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BLUDGEONING behavior. She also has a reputation for proposing hooks that are too wordy, read awkwardly, and are crammed full of too many facts. She will often argue with reviewers when they have clearly communicated why her hooks fail DYK criteria. Unfortunately, these conversations have not exhibited a change in the type of hooks Gerda chooses to propose, and her nominations tend to have repeating points of conflict. I personally think some sort of forced agreement/sanction that Gerda will not argue with reviewers when they reject a hook for being too wordy, boring, and poorly constructed is not unreasonable under the circumstances.4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not that it belongs here, but once you raised the topic: as far as I recall, that was the only time I began a poll. In the end, we had a hook that wasn't too far off from the original proposal, and I would like to know how to avoid the enormous waste of time and the friction between editors. Without a poll, we had a similar story for Maryvonne Le Dizès: after a long time of discussion, the hook was almost exactly as the one initially proposed, and there was not only interest for her but also her ensemble. I proposed a similar hook in German, the discussion was much shorter, contained the same scepticism because the ensemble with the French name would not be known (and it is not linked in German, they only link the subject), and still: a hook mentioning the ensemble was chosen, and she and even the ensemble found interest. What I like in the German system is that there's a position where several users can propose hooks, and another where several can simply leave support or oppose for the nomination, and a third where hooks are discussed. More neutral than our system of one reviewer and their personal preferences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Given that the recurring issues with your hooks largely revolve around WP:DYKINT (hooks that rely too much on specialist information like knowledge of classical music that not all readers have), and WP:DYKTRIM (hooks that are too long and complicated, or feature too many clauses and information), to avoid excessive friction between you and reviewers/other editors, my suggestion would be to follow the advice of editors like 4meter4 or CurryTime7-24 and focus on proposing hooks that appeal to broad audiences as opposed to only classical music fans.

Much of the friction is the result of opposition to your hooks on interestingness and/or wording grounds, so proposing hooks with those in mind from the start would greatly help in avoiding friction and ensuring quick reviews. Even if this may occasionally mean hooks that focus more about their personal life rather than their career, this does mean that more readers are more likely to read the article where they can learn more about the subject's career. In addition, a willingness to compromise, including making concessions or even accepting hooks different from what you want, would go a long way.

I understand your hook style and you really want to highlight these careers or "what's unique to them", but it's clear that this hook format generally doesn't work out and leads to these discussions that are often longer than the actual articles themselves. So my suggestion, again, as painful as it may be to you personally, would be to avoid such hook formats and go with the style of 4meter4 or CurryTime. In addition, if the article truly does not have anything usable, there is no shame in simply not nominating it for DYK at all: not all articles are good fits for DYK, and that's okay. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Approving Alt1 and Alt2 only. Promoter may pick one at their discretion. I'm reviewing because I was pinged, and because Narutolovehinata5 wrote the approved alts and cannot approve them himself. I agree the original hook and the ALT0a hook are awkward to read, and boring and fail DYK's criteria for hooks. It just doesn't work name dropping The New York Times without quoting the paper's review in some fashion, and there just isn't room for that in the hook. Alt1 and Alt2 are both more interesting hooks and I support approving one of those over the other hook. Both are reasonably interesting (I particularly like the quote which would make me want to read the article), and both hooks are cited to reliable sources. Nice work Gerda on this article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: To clarify, they weren't my hooks. They were proposed by Storye book in the previous nomination, I just simply reproposed them for this new nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, I think the text on The New York Times review needs to be tweaked. The current text is not accurate and is misleading. The article doesn't say Marina Kondratyeva specifically danced with "poise and authority". That quote was targeted at the entire Bolshoi company (ie all the dancers), not just Kondratyeva. The current text makes its seems like the quote was about her dancing specifically which is not true. It does say that she excels in the role of Giselle.4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed the text. Can't see the article - someone who can may expand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I hope that the image will make it, in which case saying "ballerina" is pretty redundant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There's a pattern with these nominations that comes to mind: after all the back-and-forth, the push and pull on the same exact talking points, there's always a last-breath cowboy approval of one or two hooks in the nomination. Maybe it's a sunk cost fallacy of all the time and energy put into the nomination already, because I've never seen one of those hooks actually go on to perform well on the Main Page. Look at Maryvonne Le Dizes, how long it took to pick a hook that flopped hard. I don't wanna see the same thing happen here. ALT1 and ALT2 are variations on the same ideas we've tried any number of times, and my read of the stats pages is that our readership doesn't care about them. I don't think they should be approved. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that if the picture is provided, words don't matter much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The grainy one with terrible lighting where her face is doubled? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The one that shows her artistry at a glance - we talk 1972, and can be happy to have it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think either Alt1 or Alt2 are comparable to the previously poorly received hooks written by Gerda. These were not written by Gerda (not that it matters), do not have obscure works in a resume format, or have an awkwardly worded/incorporated quote. Both are perfectly acceptable, are reasonably interesting, and were authored by longtime DYK contributor Storye book who suggested them at the previous failed DYK nomination where they were not rejected by a prior reviewer. (The article had sourcing problems which is why it failed in the past.) Clearly, NTH thinks they are fine as well, or he would not have transferred them to the nomination page. That makes three DYK editors who did not nominate or write the article who approve of these hooks.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Minor issue was fixed. Approving Alt1 and Alt2 only per above.4meter4 (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Today's focus is on Madeleine Riffaud. I made a story my way. Would you think a hook about the style of her poems would be a suitable hook? Or that she was active in Resistance for xx years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)