This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
A fact from Kelsey Lauritano appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that when Kelsey Lauritano portrayed Mozart's Cherubino, a reviewer from the FAZ noted her "almost metallic-brittle approach that spreads androgynous infatuation"?
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.
ALT1: ... that when Kelsey Lauritano portrayed Mozart's Cherubino, a reviewer from the FAZ noted her "almost metallic-brittle approach that spreads androgynous infatuation"? Source: [2] - she is pictured
The article was nominated on March 2, or 11 days after creation. Normally a one-or-two day extension would probably be okay for IAR exemption purposes, but 11 days is quite long and is actually closer to two weeks than one. Unfortunately, 11 days is probably too long to be given an IAR exemption and thus the article is ineligible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said I completely forgot, and it's true. I am sorry. I am sorry. It's my fault. But should readers not meet a wonderful singer because of my bad memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make a hook especially for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the community should take another look at the one-week rule sometime (in general, not just for this nom). When was it made? I don't really see the harm in having something nominated two weeks after creation. Bremps... 03:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, the rule has been around for a long while. There have actually been multiple efforts to relax the rule in the past but they have failed to gain consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IAR rule is just this: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it".
What we need here is to establish whether passing (subject to review) this nomination through to DYK will improve or maintain Wikipedia.
We need to put this into perspective by bearing in mind that a great many nominations appear on DYK more than a month after creation (one of mine took 8 months). Yes, sometimes the delay is a problematic nomination, but often it just takes a while for the promoters to find the right slot for them.
So I shall review it, and then we can see whether DYK really will be adversely affected on the grounds that the hook was submitted 4 days late. Storye book (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Only one sticking-point, and I hope that that will be temporary:
In my own opinion, the 4-day delay in uploading the nomination passes IAR requirements, but I think we need more voices to get a consensus.
As for the QPQ, it is incomplete, but this nominator has a good record regarding QPQs, and I believe that it will be completed soon. When that happens, then the only remaining issue will be the 4-day delay.
I believe that ALT1 would get lots of clicks because of the word, "androgynous", due to current public interest and discussion around the subject. Storye book (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm with preference for ALT1, subject to more voices for a consensus on the 4-day delay. The green tick is given on the grounds that I believe that WP will benefit more from the inclusion of this nomination, than from nit-picking over a 4-day delay. I should add that this 4-day delay is from one of our most dedicated and hard-working editors, and that WP should not suffer from us punishing such an editor who has made this minor, innocent mistake. Storye book (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be on the safe side, I would suggest that a third, uninvolved and uninvited editor, come here to make a final decision regarding if the IAR request should be accepted. This is only asking for a third opinion about the IAR request and not about the hooks or article check. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Narutolovehinata5. But the next opinion would be a fifth, not a third voice. So far (as I understand it), the views, in order as given, are:
I've been aware of this nom for a little under a week after Gerda brought my attention to it and have been reserving judgement. I find Storye book's explanation convincing; per this, the verifiable mitigating circumstances behind the delay, and as a one-off (but only as a one-off), I'd be inclined to take it. (Don't do this again mind.)--Launchballer 13:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming green tick to clarify for the promoter. ALT1 preferred. Storye book (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was nominated on March 2, or 11 days after creation. Normally a one-or-two day extension would probably be okay for IAR exemption purposes, but 11 days is quite long and is actually closer to two weeks than one. Unfortunately, 11 days is probably too long to be given an IAR exemption and thus the article is ineligible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
with preference for ALT1, subject to more voices for a consensus on the 4-day delay. The green tick is given on the grounds that I believe that WP will benefit more from the inclusion of this nomination, than from nit-picking over a 4-day delay. I should add that this 4-day delay is from one of our most dedicated and hard-working editors, and that WP should not suffer from us punishing such an editor who has made this minor, innocent mistake. Storye book (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
To be on the safe side, I would suggest that a third, uninvolved and uninvited editor, come here to make a final decision regarding if the IAR request should be accepted. This is only asking for a third opinion about the IAR request and not about the hooks or article check. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)