Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/The Lost Boys (professional wrestling)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Lost Boys (professional wrestling)

[edit]
(
)

Created by 72.74.209.206 (talk) and moved to mainspace. Self nominated, with assistance from Mandarax (talk), at 06:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Long enough (but see issue 1 re date). I don't know whether this nom requires a QPQ because it is only half a self-nom; but if required, Mandarax, I can donate one of my many current DYK reviews to cover this dilemma. No problem with disambig links. All online citations but one are accessible (see issue 2). Original hook and ALT1 are short enough and acceptable, although I think that ALT1 is much more fun and hooky. Original hook is sourced to offline citation #9 (accepted AGF) and online citations #10 and #11. ALT1 is sourced to offline citation #1 accepted AGF. The text is written in an objective manner, in neutral style, and is fully cited, but see issue 3. No copyvio or close paraphrasing found; sources for citations #1-#16 checked (#17-#35 not checked) Issues 1-3 below are part of this review. --Storye book (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Issues: (1) This article was created/moved 22 May, and nominated 1 June which is ten days after creation. The time limit is five days. However because this article is a useful and comprehensive one and represents a lot of hard work on the part of the editor, and because the DYK review backlog means that there are still many noms much older than this one still languishing on this template talk page, I'm putting this question up for a second opinion. I'd be happy to see this nom promoted (if it is acceptable in all other ways) but I cannot tick it until at least one other reviewer agrees to make an exception for this too-late nom - and it must be understood that admin may still refuse it. (2) Online link for citation #23 is self-certificated, therefore will be blocked by many firewalls due to security risk. Please remove it; the DYK external links tool flags it as a deadlink anyway. (3) The first paragraph of the Independent circuit (1997–1998) section has no inline citation at the end (I don't think this point is a barrier to DYK promotion because the rest is well-cited).--Storye book (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Summary: Second opinion by experienced reviewer (e.g. BlueMoonset?) is required here, in particular for issue (1) in bold, above. Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Second opinion on eligibility: according to WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria, 1d, articles are not considered new until they reach main article space. On May 22, the article was moved from Articles for Creation to the Draft space for more work, and then not moved to article space until May 30. So, for DYK purposes, this article's creation date was May 30. (DYKcheck doesn't seem to have noted the move from Draft to mainspace, but I'm not sure it knows about the Draft space; I'll let Shubinator know about this.) A June 1 nomination is therefore in plenty of time. Storye book, over to you for the remainder of the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, BlueMoonset for kindly sorting this out for us.--Storye book (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @ Mandarax. Issue 1 is now resolved. Please could you kindly deal with the remaining issues 2 and 3. When that is done, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Storye book and Mandarax, re (2) above my browser also blocks that reference as "untrusted", so per your suggestion I have removed it altogether. Striking it above as an issue. Re (3) there is nothing in Wikipedia:Did you know/Citation that requires a citation at the end of the paragraph. Only that there is one citation per paragraph. In this case, there are numerous citations throughout that paragraph. So, I'm striking through that above. If you have no other issues, I think you can pass this one. — Maile (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Maile for removing the deadlink. Please note that it's normal DYK etiquette to refrain from striking other editor's comments, especially reviewers' comments. This is because if you strike part of a reviewer's comment it misleads everyone else into thinking that the strike was done by the reviewer and that it represents part of an independent review. I have let stand your strike-out of issue 2, because I would have struck it myself - but I could only do that after checking that the deadlink was indeed gone. I had to un-strike issue 3 because it is still true. You had even struck out the bit that said it wasn't a barrier to DYK! --Storye book (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Storye book, Re the strikeouts - OOPS! Somehow I think I already knew that. Thanks for reminding me. — Maile (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All issues resolved. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Lost_Boys_(professional_wrestling)&oldid=615125684"