Template:Did you know nominations/Eduard von Capelle

The following is an archived discussion of Eduard von Capelle's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC).

Eduard von Capelle

(

)

... that Admiral Eduard von Capelle was responsible for writing the legislation that funded the battleships of the German High Seas Fleet before World War I?

5x expanded by Parsecboy (talk). Self nominated at 00:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC).

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pyotr Verzilov
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Old Chappaqua Historic District
Page is new enough, long enough and within policy. Hook formatting and content are good; AGF on off-line source. QPQ still needs to be completed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Review is added and according to Dana Boomer this looks ready to go. -- Esemono (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No, actually a review has not been done. Template:Did you know nominations/Pyotr Verzilov does not show any review by Parsecboy; oddly Esemono added the link to that "review" up above. OCNative (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I did the review for him/her -- Esemono (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Second review has been done so that this can move on. -- Esemono (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note on QPQ reviews: the Pyotr Verzilov did not qualify, since Esemono did not do an actual review there but suggested a couple of ALT hooks, which is not at all the same thing. The Old Chappaqua was an actual review, and does qualify. I'll be pinging Dana boomer to ask for confirmation that this does indeed pass now that the QPQ has been completed; it's never safe to assume that this was the only issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The article met all of the other DYK criteria, it was only the QPQ that was missing. I'm wary that this "donating" of reviews sets a bad precedent that could undermine the usefulness of QPQ, but if no-one else has this problem, that's fine. The article and hook are good to go for DYK. Dana boomer (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)