Template:Did you know nominations/Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design
The following is an archived discussion of Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design'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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design
[edit]( )
- ... that Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design (pictured) for the Chicago Tribune earned him $20,000 but was never built?
Created by Binksternet (talk). Self nominated at 18:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC).
PumpkinSky talk 00:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
-
- Go find something not DYK worthy in it. PumpkinSky talk 02:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Heh heh... Let's see: it's long enough, the date is right, it's brand new, The referencing is pretty thorough, the hook is okay, the hook is cited in the article, the image is public domain because its age, there's no trace of copyright violation in the prose... ;^)
- Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's a review. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's what the green tick mark means, no need to repeat it and be redundant. Are you saying Binky can review his own noms? PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh scratch that. I didn't notice the "review" was from the nominator. Putting a simple green check mark without a single word on why doesn't suggest that a review was completed. We don't know what was checked out and what wasn't. I know that you two are both "veterans" here, but a simple checkmark shouldn't be enough for any reviewer. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see no reason to repeat the obvious when the cute little green check mark says it all. You're making a mountain out a molehill. Stop spending so much time at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis. PumpkinSky talk 23:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, hey, if this little spat is going to prevent my new article from getting anywhere then please step aside to let the nomination go forward. Think of the children... ;^)
- Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see no reason to repeat the obvious when the cute little green check mark says it all. You're making a mountain out a molehill. Stop spending so much time at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis. PumpkinSky talk 23:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh scratch that. I didn't notice the "review" was from the nominator. Putting a simple green check mark without a single word on why doesn't suggest that a review was completed. We don't know what was checked out and what wasn't. I know that you two are both "veterans" here, but a simple checkmark shouldn't be enough for any reviewer. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's what the green tick mark means, no need to repeat it and be redundant. Are you saying Binky can review his own noms? PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's a review. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
