Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Chain Reaction (sculpture)

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 Allen3 talk 19:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chain Reaction (sculpture)

[edit]

Improved to Good Article status by Viriditas (talk). Self nominated at 05:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

  • Pinging BlueMoonset. I'm not sure of the proper procedure for this myself, but I was contacted on my talk page because of my involvement with the original nomination. As the History of the template shows, this was originally nominated in December 2013, without notifying Viriditas as the creator. Because Viriditas felt the article was part of ongoing local events and not ready for DYK, it was withdrawn by the creator's request. Viriditas has now improved the article to GA and has renominated it herewith. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I reviewed this the first time, and I'll review it again now. I don't know the current dictum about QPQ, so I'm donating one of mine for Viriditas.— Maile (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The following has been checked in this review by Maile
  • QPQ donated by Maile
Eligibility
  • Article created by Viriditas on December 17, 2013 and has 9,894 characters of readable prose
  • Achieved GA status on March 2, 2015
  • Article is NPOV, stable, no edit wars, no dispute tags
Sourcing
  • Every paragraph sourced inline
  • No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
Hook
  • Hook is NPOV, 75 characters, stated in the article and sourced 1, 2 and 3
Image
  • No image used in the DYK nomination
Tools
  • Of the 38 citations, 34 are online and all individually checked with Duplication Detector. No copyvio or close paraphrasing found.
Good 2 go, and good job. — Maile (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)