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) 05:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC).
Long enough; new enough; neutral; QPQ done; no text nasties; image free to use though the vine staff isn't obviously the subject and the description is a bit wordy for DYK. Original hook, ALT2, ALT5 are fine; ALT1 and ALT3 give a bit of a feeling of the vine staff as the actor handing out the beatings (ALT2 suffers a bit from that too); ALT4 appears to be your translation which while it is perfectly valid could equally be rendered with some other variation of "Give me"; the only remaining problem is a cn tag on the article; clear that up and this will be good to go. Belle (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no problem with a [citation needed] tag in an article. There's nothing served by removing information; there's nothing helped by removing the [citation needed] tag; and there's no DYK policy violated by its presence. Do I need to get a new reviewer? or did you just not realize that we're not doing GA reviews? The hooks are cited, which is all that's needed. The article itself, for its length, is ridiculously well cited. Did you have a preference? I'm sure I could get a cite for the translation "Gimme Another", if that's the one you like; I don't recall making it up myself. I just chose it in preference to the stilted ones who bizarrely opted for phrasing like "fetch me another" or "select another one for me, sirrah", when we're talking about a drill sergeant. Also, I liked the links from that caption, but if it's a problem you could always snip it down to ...Roman epitaph. — LlywelynII 13:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting; are you saying that you can't cite it and won't remove it or that you can cite it but won't because you believe verifiability isn't in the DYK rules? Either way I'm sure it can get to the main page with the help of another reviewer. Belle (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that you're welcome to improve the article if you like but not to imagine policies that don't exist. Not only are [citation needed] tags perfectly acceptable in DYK nominations: our policies specifically deal with whether or not to count them towards the character count. (SPOILER: They don't.) I don't mind having another reviewer, but you can't actually count this as a QPQ if you're not actually applying the real guidelines (here and here) while reviewing.
Do note, though, that it's perfectly valid that you can campaign for additions to those rules. You just can't apply pet peeves as though they're already there.
Also... you're just reviewing all these out of the goodness of your heart and not for QPQ purposes? Try to follow the actual guidelines but... wow, thanks! Good on you! Still no preference among the hooks? They're my babies, so I love them all and am a bad judge... — LlywelynII 02:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
As you were. What do the rules say?
Supplementary rule D2: The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content.
Supplementary rule D6: The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags.
It is noted that a {{fact}} tag is on the list of dispute tags
Supplementary rule D15: No amount of studying rules, almost-rules, and precedents will guarantee approval
In other words, there is a DYK rule, and Belle is within her rights as a reviewer to reject the nomination.
Now I know my Roman history well enough to instantly acknowledge the correctness of the main hook and all five ALTs (in other words, I did know). But I would appreciate seeing some hard evidence of the contentious statement that the vine staff was used for directing drill and maneuvers. This is the difference between the article being rated a Start and a B. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
And the article doesn't need to be a B for DYK purposes. You're quite right that rules lawyering is deservedly frowned upon. So is rule WP:BLOAT. A cite needed tag could be a clue toward passive-aggressive edit warring but that ain't the case here: I introduced that tag and people will be able to clear it up once it's on the front page. If you're quite done white knighting, it's time to stand down and review what you've already noted: there is nothing wrong with any of the hooks and there's no dispute present on the page making it unsuitable for moving forward. Belle's well meaning and appreciated and doesn't have to approve anything she doesn't like. She's also completely wrong here and it'd be better she didn't move forward thinking she is. (Or... yknow... take it to the talk page and get some consensus to bloat the rules a little more. I don't agree, but you're right that it's a collaborative project.) New reviewer needed to select hook and confirm previous reviewers' finding that there's nothing substative wrong with the article. — LlywelynII 07:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Review Good to go! Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. Earwig's copy violation detector report gives it a clean bill. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. Hook references are verified and cited. All hooks are hooky enough, I think, and relate directly to the essence of the article. My preference would be to use Hooks 5 or 4, in that order. The hooks are interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. I personally think the caption of the picture should be shortened, but that is a mere matter of editorial taste. I would defer to the nominator's judgment.
QPQ done.
I think that the existence of a "CN" (put there by the article's creator and nominator) for an obvious and essentially indisputable fact (one could take judicial notice of it) that is not involved in the hooks should not be considered to be disqualifying. There is no evidence of edit warring. There has been substantial and material compliance with the applicable rules. We ought not to turn DYK into an exercise in Common Lawpleading. The substance of the article more than trumps any alleged procedural deficiency. This is an interesting, well-written, and well researched and cited article, for which laurels—notroad blocks, cudgels and vine staffs—are in order. Bravo! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! And caption shortened.
Just to bold it for clarity, the reviewer's preference is to go with ALT5. Excellent choice, as that's the one that prompted the article in the first place. — LlywelynII 03:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Long enough; new enough; neutral; QPQ done; no text nasties; image free to use though the vine staff isn't obviously the subject and the description is a bit wordy for DYK. Original hook, ALT2, ALT5 are fine; ALT1 and ALT3 give a bit of a feeling of the vine staff as the actor handing out the beatings (ALT2 suffers a bit from that too); ALT4 appears to be your translation which while it is perfectly valid could equally be rendered with some other variation of "Give me"; the only remaining problem is a cn tag on the article; clear that up and this will be good to go. Belle (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting; are you saying that you can't cite it and won't remove it or that you can cite it but won't because you believe verifiability isn't in the DYK rules? Either way I'm sure it can get to the main page with the help of another reviewer. Belle (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
As you were. What do the rules say?
Passes DYK checklist.
Good to go! Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. Earwig's copy violation detector report gives it a clean bill. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. Hook references are verified and cited. All hooks are hooky enough, I think, and relate directly to the essence of the article. My preference would be to use Hooks 5 or 4, in that order. The hooks are interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited.