Template:Did you know nominations/Mutomo District
The following is an archived discussion of Mutomo District's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 20:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mutomo District
[edit]- ... that LifeStraws for filtering contaminated water given to Kenyan school children in Mutomo District were small enough to hang around their necks?
Created by Star767 (talk). Self nominated at 20:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC).
- Article was created 17 March, nominated 18 March, and is approximately 2750 characters, satisfying length and date criteria. QPQ review was completed, but appears to have been done on 2 March, so needs explanation. (It doesn't appear to have been used for any other QPQ, though.) The article states the hospitals were overwhelmed, but the source uses that term for the staff, and states the "hospitals were stretched"; perhaps this can be rephrased to say "strained capacity" or something similar. Also, this source doesn't seem to mention sustainable development or microcredit. Did you get the wrong page? Hook is sourced and less than 150 characters. Once these minor issues are resolved, this will be good to go. Mindmatrix 21:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Re-review shouldn't be called for (with icon) until issues above have been addressed. However, QPQs are usually done in advance of submitting a nomination, not after (though the latter is also possible), so using one completed two weeks before a nomination needs no explanation. As long as it hasn't been used for another nomination, everything's fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- My concern was the amount of time that had passed, but my inspection seemed to reveal no other QPQ usage; I thought I'd mention it just in case. I've also removed the re-review tick, which I accidentally pasted there. Mindmatrix 22:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed several more DYK's in advance. Is there a problem with that? (sort of like money in the bank!) I've reworded as you suggested. Also, I relinked to the "projects" page which mentions "sustainable development" and "microdredit", but it's suddenly in Norwegian! - don't know what the deal is there — but it still talks about sustainable development and microcredits. Star767 (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- No problem with money in the bank, Star767. I do it too. (Please don't change the header of this template to use fewer than four equals signs on each side: DYK templates need to be transcluded as level four headers.) Mindmatrix, no problem about the "review again" icon being pasted by mistake. But you should normally use one of the other five icons each time you review as a visual indication of where the nomination stands, whether approvals (the first two) or increasingly serious issues (the next three). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry! I used a script ( Advisor.js) and didn't realize it would do that. Also, on google I found the Mutomo project page in English, so I switched it. Thanks! Star767 (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Issues have been addressed. Good to go. BlueMoonset, I've been using the tick marks, I just goofed on this one I guess. Perhaps we need a new one, like {{DYKitsbeenalongday}}. Mindmatrix 00:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
