Template:Did you know nominations/The Dreft Star Playhouse

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: rejected by EEng (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Dreft Star Playhouse

(

)

... ~~that The Dreft Star Playhouse, called "a noble experiment" by one radio historian, was a rare attempt to provide quality drama on American daytime radio in the 1940s?~~

Comment: Producers of The Dreft Star Playhouse sought to elevate the quality of daytime radio by adapting romantic movies to 15-minute-segment serials, competing with existing soap operas and other formats. One old-time radio source called the genre "prestige drama."

Created by Teblick (talk). Self nominated at 20:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC).

New (3rd), just long enough, neutral, can't check for copyvio due to offline sources, no QPQ necessary, though you'll need one next time. Now, a few things: (1) Rare? How is this sourced? Comes off as non-neutral. Also, many of the quotes can be paraphrased into new words, and one sentence with a quote doesn't have a direct citation. (Also it says very little about the actual work of the group—what kinds of radio programs and popular in what ways? Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ♔ 05:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I must apologize for my shortcomings as cited in the paragraph above. I find myself still learning about Wikipedia with each article that I write. I will try to respond to your comments below:

"Rare" is my own evaluation. I have been unable to find mention of any other daytime program like The Dreft Star Playhouse, but I also have not been able to find a source that specifically called it rare or unique (which actually seems to me to be the case). How does one prove a negative -- that nothing like it was produced in the history of broadcast radio? If I can't mention that the program was rare -- if not unique -- then that eliminates the hook, so the nomination can be withdrawn from consideration for DYK. I will accept that fact.
Regarding the quotations, here are my thoughts: 1) "Prestige drama" is a term that I had not encountered before doing research for this article. I think it has a significance that I cannot match in my own words. 2) I considered rewording "attempted to accomplish in a five-times-a-week soap-opera format what Lux Radio Theatre had done in the nighttime format," but I couldn't come up with wording as effective as the source's without plagiarizing. 3) The same reason as in 2) applied to Dunning's quotation. 4) How could I effectively convey the meaning of "ran two months in daily quarter-hour doses" without verging on plagiarism? I couldn't think of a way. 5) The expression "an ambitious undertaking" is Dunning's opinion. I I couldn't state that on my own. 6) I could have paraphrased the reference to salaries in "up to $3,000 per week for 'name' talent," but I feel that the "name" part of the quote adds impact. Again, that is Dunning's opinion, which I couldn't state on my own.
You cited "one sentence with a quote doesn't have a direct citation." Were you referring to the first sentence under "Productions and players"? The reference at the end of the last bulleted item was meant to encompass all of the text in the section. If I need a separate citation for the first sentence, I will be glad to add one. With some of my earlier articles, I was chastised for repeating citations unnecessarily, so I have since tried to streamline them. I can easily put another Dunning citation at the end of that sentence, however.
You wrote, "it says very little about the actual work of the group—what kinds of radio programs..." My first paragraph says, "The Dreft Star Playhouse was a daytime radio program in the United States, presenting adaptations of romantic movies in serial form." How much more specific should I be about the kinds of programs?
You also asked, "...popular in what ways?" After reading the article again, I can't see that I used the word popular or implied that the program was popular. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question.Eddie Blick (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your response is longer than the article! If no source says that it's rare, it would be OR to come to that conclusion ourselves. It's not to prove a negative—if some reliable source about radio history makes the claim that it's rare, then we can cite it. If not, we don't mention it. You can replace the hook with something else, though. The quote paraphrasing was just a suggestion—no obligation to a DYK review. Every time someone is directly quoted (with quotation marks), there needs to be a ref immediately following that sentence, even if it repeats the ref at the end of the ¶ (see WP:MINREF). I was curious about what kinds of romantic movies (again, no DYK obligation to address). czar ♔ 04:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

To avoid any slipups I'm striking the original hook right now because there's no way "rare" can fly without a source. EEng (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Teblick, you need to supply a new hook, since the "rare" assertion is unsupported and the original hook has been struck. Please do so soon; this has been waiting for a while. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a new hook for the nomination. In the discussion above, I wrote, "If I can't mention that the program was rare -- if not unique -- then that eliminates the hook, so the nomination can be withdrawn from consideration for DYK. I will accept that fact." I still prefer that the nomination be withdrawn, deleted, or whatever the proper term is. Thank you. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)