Template:Did you know nominations/Tomas Hertl
- 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 11:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tomas Hertl
[edit]- ... that 19-year old Tomas Hertl is the youngest player to score two goals in one game for the San Jose Sharks since Patrick Marleau in 1999?
- ALT4:... that at 19 years, 330 days old, Tomas Hertl is the youngest player to score four goals in a National Hockey League game since Jimmy Carson in 1988?
- ALT1:... that 19-year old Tomas Hertl scored his first two career goals in his second career National Hockey League game?
- ALT2:... that Tomas Hertl is the first European player drafted with the San Jose Sharks' top pick since Lukas Kaspar in 2004?
- ALT3:... that 19-year old Tomas Hertl is the youngest player to score two goals in one game for the San Jose Sharks since Patrick Marleau in 1999?
- ALT4:... that Tomas Hertl is the first teenager to play in a National Hockey League season opener for the San Jose Sharks since Marc-Édouard Vlasic in 2006?
- ALT5:... that Tomas Hertl is the first San Jose Sharks player to score four goals in a game since Owen Nolan in 1995?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2013–14 Worcester Sharks season
5x expanded by ZappaOMati (talk). Self nominated at 03:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC).
Article is original and adequately sourced; prose size was expanded adequately, more than 10-fold; nomination is timely. Hook is sourced; I prefer hook Alt4, "... that at 19 years, 330 days old, Tomas Hertl is the youngest player to score four goals in a National Hockey League game since Jimmy Carson in 1988?", as the most interesting. A QPQ review was done, although rather perfunctorally; other users later engaged in substantial debate about the reviewed nomination, in which User:ZappaOMati did not take part. Still, I find that the requirements have been met and the DYK nomination is good to go. --MelanieN (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, I didn't notice the discussion. I just checked the article, passed it and went on. I guess I didn't notice the discussion going on. I wouldn't mind if I have to review another. If I don't have to, then I'm fine. ZappaOMati 13:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, you don't have to review another. The article was good to go per the usual criteria; some people objected to the use of bare URLs in the article, that's all. In the future you might want to watchlist the nomination you QPQ, just in case something else come up. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
