When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 22, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk 17:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Created by Tamzin ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC). Note: at the time of this nomination, DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode. All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior nominations during this time will require two QPQs for every article nominated. Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Great hook, although our usual DYK buzzkills may insist on quotation marks around "worst joke in legal history" later on talk. Earwig's a bit high, but that's most because of quotes and proper nouns. AryKun ( talk) 11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The article does not write what exactly was the old joke. - Altenmann >talk 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Tamzin
Reviewer: Generalissima ( talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, you're nominating this already? Sure, I'll review it over the next few days.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she) 06:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This hits the GA criteria without you even having to change anything, congrats. Feel free to respond to my inane suggestions at your leisure. Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 05:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I feel unsure as to whether this is worthy of being an article. Parts of this article feel like a COATRACK for Roe v. Wade (or at least its oral argument section), given that it spends a lot of time talking about the case and its participants, not the joke. In addition, the content, if merged, does not seem like it'd be so long that it'd overwhelm the Roe article (or at least not any more than it already is). I'm worried that this is something like Lewis (baseball) or Wisp (Sonic), in that the sources are not mainly about the subject and in many cases, are about the subject tangentially (see also User:Red Phoenix/Due weight as a measure of appropriate coverage). I appreciate the work put into this, though, and I do not intend to start an AfD for this article (a merge proposal is more palatable to me, but I don't think I'll do that either). - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 22, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk 17:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Created by Tamzin ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC). Note: at the time of this nomination, DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode. All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior nominations during this time will require two QPQs for every article nominated. Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Great hook, although our usual DYK buzzkills may insist on quotation marks around "worst joke in legal history" later on talk. Earwig's a bit high, but that's most because of quotes and proper nouns. AryKun ( talk) 11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The article does not write what exactly was the old joke. - Altenmann >talk 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Tamzin
Reviewer: Generalissima ( talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, you're nominating this already? Sure, I'll review it over the next few days.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she) 06:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This hits the GA criteria without you even having to change anything, congrats. Feel free to respond to my inane suggestions at your leisure. Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 05:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I feel unsure as to whether this is worthy of being an article. Parts of this article feel like a COATRACK for Roe v. Wade (or at least its oral argument section), given that it spends a lot of time talking about the case and its participants, not the joke. In addition, the content, if merged, does not seem like it'd be so long that it'd overwhelm the Roe article (or at least not any more than it already is). I'm worried that this is something like Lewis (baseball) or Wisp (Sonic), in that the sources are not mainly about the subject and in many cases, are about the subject tangentially (see also User:Red Phoenix/Due weight as a measure of appropriate coverage). I appreciate the work put into this, though, and I do not intend to start an AfD for this article (a merge proposal is more palatable to me, but I don't think I'll do that either). - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)