|This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.|
Robert Cumberford DYK Nom
In one of my earliest reviews for DYK, I disapproved a nomination that was submitted under the same provisions as I used to nominate the above. The nominator got another reviewer to override my decision; the DYK passed and ran. It was not a 5X expansion, but passed as a "new" article.
I don't understand why unsourced text counts toward the content of an article being replaced, but so be it. It must be valuable enough to preserve, I guess, despite its lack of credibility. Now that I realize that the "new article" loophole only applies to others, I will no longer nominate articles under that rule, but shrug my shoulders over the usual WP bureaucracy.
- Georgejdorner, thanks for replying. Do you mind telling me which nomination it was that you disapproved and were overruled on? I'd like to know what the arguments were, since articles that are expanded in place, even by what amounts to a complete rewrite, should not count as new. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- It has been a while, and I could not say offhand. What's done is done, anyhow. I just had to learn that worthless unsourced text still counts in these matters, that loopholes are the prerogative of other editors, and take it into account. And so, with a shrug, I return to writing. I feel it's time to accept the fact that equity does not a cogent argument make when dealing with WP. But thank you for your concern.
DYK for Alsager Hay Hill
Thank you for your note on my talk page, which finally spurred me into action regarding the QPQ (the points regarding references were, I hope, addressed in some earlier edits). Kind regards. Paul W (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Paul W, I see that Rosiestep has already approved the nomination, so any issues she may have had with the references have clearly been addressed. I'm glad that everything's all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I took your lead from a previous article and nominated Dreams Come True (Glee) to be included on the main page's "Did You Know" section. I did include both of us as "creator" since we seem to have been the main responsible editing parties on the article since its main revision after the episode aired. Since you have more DYK experience than I, perhaps you could look it over and see if it needs any help or to get the QPQ review started. Sorry, I don't have the nice pre-made template that you seem to use. :)
- SanAnMan, I appreciate the thought, but I've pulled myself out of the nomination template: my only contribution was to the Guest actors list in the infobox, and that's not nearly enough to qualify as a co-creator. (The original "creator" who set up the article also doesn't deserve credit, because the plot section was a straight copy from the season 6 article; there isn't enough original material to qualify for him or her either.)
- Since this is your first nomination, and only the second DYK you've been involved in, a QPQ (quid pro quo) review won't be needed. (Only after your fifth does the requirement kick in.) However, there are a number of issues you'll need to clear up, and rather than waiting for a reviewer, I thought it would help if I mentioned them. I'll use numbers for clarity:
- I've suggested an alternate hook that specifically mentions "the final episode" to use as the link to the article. Since there has to be a bold link to the episode article (which Mandarax has added to your original hook), it helps if the wording makes it clear that the link is to that article. You may have another idea altogether; if you're not fond of my proposed wording, feel free to say so and to propose your own.
- You'll need an inline source citation for the first Production paragraph. Generally, each paragraph in the body of the article needs at least one source citation, except for Plot sections, which don't need any citing. (The episode is its own source for the plot.)
- All the facts in the hook must also be in the article. Many are not, and for this hook, I recommend that they be added, with valid inline sources, to the Production section. Note that for DYK, inline sources must be placed by the end of the sentence that contains the fact(s) in question:
- Six seasons. Yes, this needs to be specifically mentioned and sourced, preferably in the body of the article.
- 728 musical performances. This definitely needs to be added and sourced. If you can't source it, then you can certainly fall back on "over 700", since the 700th musical performance was ballyhooed; I think it was the final one in episode 6.
- Last song sung on the series. This also needs to be specified and sourced (that "I Lived" by OneRepublic was the last one in the last episode broadcast).
- Best of luck! I'll give you all the help I can! —BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the inquiry. I won't be able to review the article. My Wiki time is very sparse and I don't have the time I used to have to devote to GA reviewing. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. The nomination has been returned to the GAN reviewing pool, and the review page deleted. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Tygerberg Zoo dyk
Hi - Thanks for reviewing my DYK nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Tygerberg Zoo. The article Tygerberg Zoo now passes the hurdle of being in mainspace, in case you could look at it again. :) --doncram 07:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)