Template:Did you know nominations/Steve McGarrett
- 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: promoted by Montanabw(talk) 05:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Steve McGarrett
[edit]... that the mother of Steve McGarrett in Hawaii Five-0 seemed dead until she appeared in season 3?
- Reviewed: Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/7 Espantos (5th of 7 QPQs)
Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 05:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC).
- Per Rule C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way. Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Struck the hook due to issues raised by Yoninah; new hook will be needed before review can commence in earnest. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- (ALT1) ... that Steve McGarrett was played by Jack Lord and reprised by Alex O'Loughlin 30 years later?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: Nice. Could you source the two hook facts in the article, and I'll proceed with the review? Yoninah (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, this is interesting. Looking at the page history, this article had 8215 characters on August 17, 2009 before it was turned into a redirect. Per Rule A4, your new article must be a 5x expansion on that. Yoninah (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yoninah, this is an expansion from a redirect, not an expansion of an article that effectively has not existed for over six years. If it had been a fairly new redirect (on the order of weeks or a couple of months) that would have been one thing, but that isn't an issue here. Further, nothing from the former article has been reused (if major portions had been, then they would have needed to be 5x expanded). So this was correctly submitted as a new creation, and should be reviewed as such. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic. Thanks for clarifying that, @BlueMoonset:. Then everything is in order: New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook refs verified and cited inline. QPQ done. Good to go! Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
