Template:Did you know nominations/Ballet Manila
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 no consensus to promote after two weeks. The concerns raised by Smuconlaw (talk · contribs) regarding the requirement for inline citations for every paragraph have not been addressed. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Ballet Manila
[edit]- ... that Ballet Manila received eight standing ovations in all of its eight performances in a 2011 tour of the United Kingdom and Ireland?
- ALT 1:... that Ballet Manila received good raves and high praises in their performances of a recent 2011 United Kingdom and Ireland tour?
- expanded 5x by 1143 Characters of prose to 7532 Characters of Prose by User:TitanOne (talk). Self nom at 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| — SMUconlaw (talk) | — SMUconlaw (talk) | — SMUconlaw (talk) | — SMUconlaw (talk) |
- I prefer the main hook to the alternative hook. I don't think "good raves" makes sense – perhaps "good responses" or "rave reviews" should be used instead.
- I think it is adequate to say "received standing ovations in all of its eight performances"; in other words, eight doesn't have to be repeated twice.
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| — SMUconlaw (talk) | — SMUconlaw (talk) | No | — SMUconlaw (talk) | — SMUconlaw (talk) | — SMUconlaw (talk) | — SMUconlaw (talk) |
- A number of portions of the text lack references:
- "Repertoire": the last sentence of the first paragraph is not referenced.
- "Facility": most of the information in this section is unreferenced.
- "Advocacy": the 2010 interview with Macuja-Elizalde is unreferenced.
- The reference in footnote 22 seems to be a partial reproduction of the reference in footnote 21. I think footnote 22 can be deleted.
- Archive URLs should be added to avoid link rot. However, I don't think this affects whether the article should appear on DYK. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- A number of portions of the text lack references: