Template:Did you know nominations/Collier Bay (horse) & Danoli
- 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 PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Collier Bay (horse), Danoli
[edit]- ... that the media and the crowd at the 1996 Irish Champion Hurdle were more enthusiastic about Danoli finishing in third place than Collier Bay winning by a head?
- Comment: [1] Not a self-nom. --PFHLai (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC) [2] The runner-up Minella Lad does not have a wikiarticle yet. Potential for a triple-nom? --PFHLai (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Article is within policy, hook is interesting and does not focus on any negative aspect. Well cited. Well structured. I think it is good to go! Khyati Gupta (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Review only mentions one article, but there are two articles in the hook. This means that both articles must be fully reviewed. Can whichever one that was not reviewed be reviewed? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- From the Collier bay article: "Collier Bay's win was almost ignored, as the crowd and media focused their attention on the popular Danoli, who was returning after a career-threatening injury." was cited. And I checked the citation which matches with the citation done for Danoli article: " His comeback from injury was received with such enthusiasm by the public and the media that the winner, Collier Bay was virtually ignored." Both were cited from "The Independent" which is a reliable source for news. I read through the cited article and thought it was relevant. And as I read through both of the nominated wiki articles, they seem neutral and were not negatively biased. Khyati Gupta (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding; I see you've checked the Hook section requirements. You do not mention whether both articles have enough new material: as it happens, a quick check shows that Danoli meets the 5x expansion requirement, and Collier Bay, a newly created article, is over the 1500 prose character minimum. Did you check them both for close paraphrasing, the last item in the "Within policy" section? That's also important. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not seeing any close paraphrasing on spotcheck, though I would suggest a copy-edit on Danoli. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding; I see you've checked the Hook section requirements. You do not mention whether both articles have enough new material: as it happens, a quick check shows that Danoli meets the 5x expansion requirement, and Collier Bay, a newly created article, is over the 1500 prose character minimum. Did you check them both for close paraphrasing, the last item in the "Within policy" section? That's also important. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- From the Collier bay article: "Collier Bay's win was almost ignored, as the crowd and media focused their attention on the popular Danoli, who was returning after a career-threatening injury." was cited. And I checked the citation which matches with the citation done for Danoli article: " His comeback from injury was received with such enthusiasm by the public and the media that the winner, Collier Bay was virtually ignored." Both were cited from "The Independent" which is a reliable source for news. I read through the cited article and thought it was relevant. And as I read through both of the nominated wiki articles, they seem neutral and were not negatively biased. Khyati Gupta (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
From my perspective, that should do the trick now. Based on Nikkimaria's comments above, I have given Danoli another careful read, but I couldn't say what requires a copy-edit. I'll ping her through her talk page. Schwede66 04:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed some here; otherwise, a few missing commas and some sections that are confusing to non-experts...but I think it's good enough that the nom need not be held up over prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)