Template:Did you know nominations/Code Reviser

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: rejected by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Code Reviser

(

)

... that the first Code Reviser of the state of Washington served a 27-year term in office?

Created by DocumentError (talk). Self nominated at 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC).

The article is new enough, long enough and nominated timely. No copyvios found. QPQ is not required, since this is the author's fifth nomination, but it will be required from now on. There is one problem: the hook is not explicitly cited in the article. Instead there is a table showing the names of the officeholders and their years in office, and readers are required to do the math for themselves. I would suggest you eliminate the table format; there are only three people in it, and two of them are missing half the information you chose to include. I suggest that instead you describe the three office holders in prose sentences. That way you can include the information you have for Richard White but do not have for the other two. Important: specifically say 27-year term in the sentence about Richard White, and cite the reference to that sentence. This may seem like silly nit-picking - after all, readers CAN do the math - but it is a requirement of DYK that the hook fact be specifically cited by a reference on the sentence that includes the fact. Please ping me when this has been dealt with, or if you want to discuss it. Aside from that one issue, the nomination is good to go. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much, MelanieN, this is a great point. I have an ANI issue I need to deal with but, as soon as that's done, I'll make these changes. DocumentError (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been sitting for nearly four weeks without the issue being dealt with and is likely to be closed unless DocumentError posts here that he still intends to pursue the nomination. Also, in the interim, the fifth (and sixth!) nominations have been promoted without a QPQ being done, so this nomination will require a quid pro quo review after all. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Marking for closure as unsuccessful. It's been over five weeks since the nominator last posted, and over two and a half since DocumentError's most recent edit on Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)