Template:Did you know nominations/BP Refinery v Tracey
- 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.
The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
BP Refinery v Tracey
- ... that the court in BP Refinery v Tracey upheld a decision to reinstate an employee fired by BP for posting a meme video from the 2004 film Downfall? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/11/downfall-bp-worker-sacked-for-hitler-meme-wins-200000-in-compensation
- Reviewed:
- Comment: - Hi all. I consider myself good at authoring articles, but a total novice at writing good DYK hooks
- The facts are: BP were negotiating wages with their employees. These negotiations were heated. An employee made a video using the Downfall scene that's been turned into many memes. He got fired, and the court ultimately reinstated him and he was back paid over $200,000.
- Any reviewer, please do feel free to suggest alternatives. They are very welcome.
- QPQ: The Jane
Created by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 04:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/BP Refinery v Tracey; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
I'll AGF minor discrepancy in date/size (the article was ~295 words until few days ago, when it was was expanded to ~1420, which I guess is a fraction under 5x). Given that this is your fourth DYK nom, as you claim, I think we can ignore such minor issues (but please try to carry out the QPQ review of another nomination; I am AGF-ing here that you'll do so soon). The article looks and reads well, copyvio spotcheck did not pick up any issues (some quotations, clearly marked, are ok), hook is fine, sources are good. All GTG (with AGF for the QPQ review). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Wow!! Thanks for such a fast review. I really appreciate that. The criteria I nominated the article under was "created". It was developed over a few months in draft space, but only moved to article space today. So per WP:DYKRULES isn't "the date the article first appears in article space is counted as the first day towards the DYK seven-day rule"? Just confirming I read that right. I will go and find a DYK to review. Thank you again! MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- MaxnaCarta, Thanks for claryfing. Indeed, than all is good just waiting for the QPQ review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- QPQ done, confirming GTG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- MaxnaCarta, Thanks for claryfing. Indeed, than all is good just waiting for the QPQ review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Wow!! Thanks for such a fast review. I really appreciate that. The criteria I nominated the article under was "created". It was developed over a few months in draft space, but only moved to article space today. So per WP:DYKRULES isn't "the date the article first appears in article space is counted as the first day towards the DYK seven-day rule"? Just confirming I read that right. I will go and find a DYK to review. Thank you again! MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)