Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Church Clothes 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 13:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Church Clothes 2, Round of Applause (Lecrae song)

[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Created by Br100x (talk), 3family6 (talk), Walter Görlitz (talk), and 90.230.9.103 (talk). Nominated by 3family6 (talk) at 03:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC).

  • Nominated on the 7th day of creation so i believe it just about makes it, long enough, interesting hook, sourced, QPQ done. But I'm not sure if I need to review BOTH blurb links. Anyhoo, just did and it is fine there too...although the article could use some sectioning (tagged by me)
Tracklist section needs a source. Then good to goLihaas (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
-Done.--¿3family6 contribs 18:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Not seeing the time of the song oin the source. Maybe just remove it from teh WP article?Lihaas (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Track times I'm sourcing from the actual album - the times for the commercial version are on the iTunes tracklist, and the free version I can verify because I have the album.--¿3family6 contribs 00:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I see it on the commercial version, not sure what to do about the free version as it is different timings and unverifiable and DYK is strict on sourcing. Maybe someone else can uinput on this.Lihaas (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Lihaas, both bolded articles in the hook must be reviewed before the article can be approved. On the plus side, it counts as two QPQ reviews for you to use. Each of them must meet all the DYK criteria for length, sourcing, newness, close paraphrasing, neutrality, etc. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Sweet, got a DYK review credit.
I did review both though and only the free version timing needs sourcing to be approvedLihaas (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that generally tracklistings do not need inline citations, as they can be confirmed by the album itself. The featured articles Achtung Baby, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), and Thriller do not insert citations into the track list. Confusion only includes an inline citation for the songwriter, and Dungeons & Dragons only uses the citation template for special notes on certain tracks. Some of this I think is for aesthetic reasons (the inline citations are quite large if in the heading), and also using the template for every single song is over-citing. But mainly because the track list is easily confirmed by the album itself.--¿3family6 contribs 04:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well im not sure sabout that so ill leave it to anotherLihaas (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this comment, in particular the assertion that Church Clothes 2 was "Nominated on the 7th day of creation so i believe it just about makes it". WP:WIADYK clearly stipulates a five day cutoff for nomination, so technically it fails. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucius, new comments should be added chronologically unless there's a good reason not to (like here where I'm replying to your out of order comment). At DYK, we sometimes (at reviewer discretion) give leeway on slightly late nominations, especially if it's a fairly new Wikipedian involved who hasn't had DYK experience. In this case, Br100x did the initial work on Church Clothes 2, and 3family6 nominated that article seven days later along with the Round of Applause article that had been created that day. So in any case it would have been wrong to disqualify the entire nomination, since Round of Applause was nominated the day it was created. However, there's WP:DYKSG#D9, which clearly gives some discretion, though it can be abused. In this case, two days for an article initiated by a DYK newbie is certainly grounds for a few days leeway, and Lihaas was not out of line allowing it. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs a new reviewer to rule on the free version citation issue, as the source cited for the free version (FN22—a duplicate of FN17?) does not include timings. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Track listings are like plots: they are assumed to be cited to the work in question unless there are other considerations (though I've never heard of an article on a lost album...). Compare FAs like Aaliyah (album) and Californication (album). I think we can AGF on the track times. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • May I just say, BlueMoonset, that I highly appreciate your seemingly tireless work on DYK?--¿3family6 contribs 21:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Both articles are long enough, well sourced (I've tagged one dead link), and free of copyvio. I don't think the slightly late nomination is a problem, and I agree that the track times don't need sourcing. Hook fact is present and cited in both articles. I think the hook would be a little more striking if it used Pepsi's full title of "Three Songs You Need to Hear Right Now", but I won't insist on it. What I will insist on, however, is that a second QPQ is needed, since you're nominating two articles. Once that's done, we're good to go. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Church_Clothes_2&oldid=944310162"