Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Broadway Hollywood Building

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Broadway Hollywood Building

[edit]
(
)

Broadway Hollywood Building sign

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 23:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC).

  • Good to go, no problems. Gongon3336 (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Gongon3336, per DYK rules, reviews are supposed to begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; you haven't done the latter. DYK articles aren't supposed to be stubs; while this doesn't appear to be one, it claims it is, which needs to be addressed. The example review given at T:TDYK#How to review a nomination is a good guide for what needs mentioning (though it omits neutrality): Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened. Please expand your review so it specifies what you checked and how the checks turned out; if you hadn't checked things like neutrality and close paraphrasing, now's the time. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, i'll expand my own explanation, even i'm new i studied the guidelines here in WP, hardly! So the article is long and new enough, nominated within 7 days and more than 1,500 character limit in readable prose, this article has no copyright problems , no plagriasm and paraphrasing instances, this article is also free from original research, and the article is goodly sourced, no other problems. Please don't underestimate me Gongon3336 (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Given there's something rotten in the state of Denmark regarding Gongon3336's edits to DYK, we're going to require a new reviewer. This is not a negative reflection on this DYK, just that there's an ongoing SPI and there's reason to doubt this review is anything more than a cover for socking. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Is there a way to request LEAD hook position again when this is approval is restored? At least request that PapaJeckloy who selected this as a lead hook be notified when this hook is restored.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    PapaJeckloy is the editor suspected of sock-puppetry, so if you wanted him to be contacted in the hope he would promote it to the lead position again, that's probably not going to happen (this message has been a production of Belle's Bad News for TonyTheTiger; that's all I seem to do nowadays; though I did pass your Zac Efron movie today; quit complaining) Belle (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


The following has been checked in this review by Maile

  • QPQ done by TonyTheTiger
  • Article created by TonyTheTiger on August 7, 2014 and has 5,630 characters of readable prose
  • Article is NPOV, stable, no edit wars, no dispute tags, no outstanding talk page issues
  • Every paragraph sourced online
  • No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
  • Hook image is sourced on Commons
  • Duplication Detector check of online sourcing found no copyvio
Is there a source for the Hollywood Walk of Fame location?

TonyTheTiger,this is a good article. Sorry this got caught in the sock reviewer thing. Everything works and is sourced. Except for your mention of the location being part of the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I looked through the sourcing and didn't readily see that. Just to cover all your bases, could you please stick an inline source next to that in the article? When that's done, this is ready to go. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Maile66, I have fixed the link for clarity. I.e., instead of linking to a page with a report, I have linked to the report. While I have a captive audience, do you think this edit makes the location clearer to the average reader or only those who know LA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggestion since this was a LEAD hook when it got pulled from the queues as pare of the WP:SOCK investigation, is it possible that this be held for a queue where it could resume a LEAD hook position?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since it was a SOCK who reviewed it and the MASTER put it in the lead position, one who showed extremely bad judgment in many areas (including promoting his own hooks which his socks had approved), I don't think this is a reasonable request. The hook should take its chances like every other hook, and not get any special consideration because PapaJeckloy showed it favor. Rather, it should be treated as any ordinary hook with a picture, as if it never had been promoted before, and be judged solely on that basis. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • O.K. but damn, isn't this an intriguing LEAD hook candidate:-) unsigned comment by TonyTheTiger
  • Passed, with recognition that nominator has requested this be the lead hook. TonyTheTiger, I see your edit, have read the source thoroughly, and am passing this nomination. I have no problem with it as a lead hook, but do agree with BlueMoonset that tt's up to the promoter to make the choice. — Maile (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Broadway_Hollywood_Building&oldid=625208957"