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) 07:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Created by
Piotrus (
talk). Self-nominated at 08:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC).
@
Piotrus: The hook needs to be rewritten: it seems to lack focus (mentioning two hook facts instead of one), and it's hard to read.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? That's a very personal view. I re-read the hook and I think it is fine. And I did write ~~1,000 hooks in the past, so it's not like I am an n00b. Let's wait for a proper review and a 3O on that. (And if I got a few days, maybe I'll make it a double-article DYK, addressing your issue, at least, partially). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I meant to say is that the current hook could be rewritten to make it tighter. The hook itself is interesting, it just needs a bit of improvement.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 23:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the hook reads fine, and is very hooky. I formatted the DYK template and credits. Do you have another QPQ to offer for the second article?
Yoninah (
talk) 21:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Here is a full review: Both articles are new enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced. No close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Hook refs verified and cited inline. 2 QPQs done. Good to go.
Yoninah (
talk) 13:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
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) 07:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Created by
Piotrus (
talk). Self-nominated at 08:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC).
@
Piotrus: The hook needs to be rewritten: it seems to lack focus (mentioning two hook facts instead of one), and it's hard to read.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 13:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? That's a very personal view. I re-read the hook and I think it is fine. And I did write ~~1,000 hooks in the past, so it's not like I am an n00b. Let's wait for a proper review and a 3O on that. (And if I got a few days, maybe I'll make it a double-article DYK, addressing your issue, at least, partially). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I meant to say is that the current hook could be rewritten to make it tighter. The hook itself is interesting, it just needs a bit of improvement.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 23:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the hook reads fine, and is very hooky. I formatted the DYK template and credits. Do you have another QPQ to offer for the second article?
Yoninah (
talk) 21:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Here is a full review: Both articles are new enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced. No close paraphrasing seen in online sources. Hook refs verified and cited inline. 2 QPQs done. Good to go.
Yoninah (
talk) 13:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)