Template:Did you know nominations/Entrepreneur (horse)

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 Allen3 ^talk 08:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Entrepreneur (horse)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1997, after winning the 2000 Guineas, the racehorse Entrepreneur started with the shortest odds at the Epsom Derby in fifty years?

Created/expanded by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 07:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• This looks like additional gaming of the system. "Created/expanded by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) " This combination of author/nominator being different results in a number of DYK noms where neither the nominator, nor the expander has to do a DYK nomination. If this was once or twice or three times or five times, this would not be a problem. But it is going beyond that. System gaming seems to avoid QPQ seems further enhanced by Tigerboy1966 showing up to fix DYK issues and taking credit for DYKs in Wikicup. Should be a no go because of lack of QPQ. --LauraHale (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Laura. Is this getting personal now? Would it be acceptable if someone else nominates this article? Tigerboy was already cleared of any wrongdoing at WikiCup almost a week ago. According to the current DYK rules, no QPQ review is needed for this nom (but Tigerboy is encouraged to do some). Please be encouraged to speed up the discussion initiated by you at 08:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC) on rule changes on WT:DYK, but imposing new rules before they are adopted is very wrong, especially for nominations made before you started that discussion on rule changes. --PFHLai (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Only issue I see is that two of the citations are bare urls. Once those are formatted properly, this is all good to go (although I admit I was dubious about "Blood Horse" until I realised it was an Australia print magazine!). Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Better now? --PFHLai (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

All good to go now. Only thing I would mention from a formatting point of view is that the print sources should be in italics (The Independent, Racing Post etc). But that's not enough of a biggie to stop it from going to DYK. Miyagawa (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)