The result was: promoted by
Vaticidalprophet
talk 21:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by Surtsicna ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Poecilia catemaconis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The use of multiple sources is generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topics. Vaticidal prophet 19:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep all hooks and articles completely truthful, but outrageousin WP:DYKAPRIL, but the reviewer can make their own judgement. TSventon ( talk) 17:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
...that the dwarf merry widow is not very brave?) that have done well at DYKSTATS and not attracted ERRORS commentary. I don't feel inclined to draw the line here (I do feel inclined to space these hooks out, because they're distinctive in a way that can lead to topic saturation, but we seem to be doing that well with this discussion :) ) -- I agree this one leans a bit more into the wordplay than some of the others in the series, but that's not a downside. re. QPQ, I'm not sure where the idea seems to have come recently (as in, especially the past couple days) that any review needs to checklist-mention everything on the first go. Reviews for articles with particular eligibility issues that need resolving upfront generally look like the one being used there. I agree the article is reasonably complete in the DYK sense, and don't see any issue with the freerunning text (there's at least one freerunning text article in DYKQ right now, and I've personally nominated articles that had it at the time they were promoted). Vaticidal prophet 19:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
solely from the lack of division into sections. And ouch, you said you may make some changes to "soothe anyone". It is helpful for us all to remember that we are editing for the love of the project. This morning I asked for opinions at DYKTalk because I never want to hold up a nomination - my goal is to help get your nomination promoted. Two other promotors @ Vaticidalprophet: and @ AirshipJungleman29: appear willing to promote over my concerns so I will dismiss myself. Bruxton ( talk) 23:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The use of multiple sources is generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topicsas this is quite an obscure topic. @ Bruxton: has dismissed themself after other promoters, @ Vaticidalprophet: and @ AirshipJungleman29: expressed interest in promoting the article. I'll accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamitsu ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Vaticidalprophet
talk 21:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by Surtsicna ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Poecilia catemaconis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The use of multiple sources is generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topics. Vaticidal prophet 19:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep all hooks and articles completely truthful, but outrageousin WP:DYKAPRIL, but the reviewer can make their own judgement. TSventon ( talk) 17:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
...that the dwarf merry widow is not very brave?) that have done well at DYKSTATS and not attracted ERRORS commentary. I don't feel inclined to draw the line here (I do feel inclined to space these hooks out, because they're distinctive in a way that can lead to topic saturation, but we seem to be doing that well with this discussion :) ) -- I agree this one leans a bit more into the wordplay than some of the others in the series, but that's not a downside. re. QPQ, I'm not sure where the idea seems to have come recently (as in, especially the past couple days) that any review needs to checklist-mention everything on the first go. Reviews for articles with particular eligibility issues that need resolving upfront generally look like the one being used there. I agree the article is reasonably complete in the DYK sense, and don't see any issue with the freerunning text (there's at least one freerunning text article in DYKQ right now, and I've personally nominated articles that had it at the time they were promoted). Vaticidal prophet 19:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
solely from the lack of division into sections. And ouch, you said you may make some changes to "soothe anyone". It is helpful for us all to remember that we are editing for the love of the project. This morning I asked for opinions at DYKTalk because I never want to hold up a nomination - my goal is to help get your nomination promoted. Two other promotors @ Vaticidalprophet: and @ AirshipJungleman29: appear willing to promote over my concerns so I will dismiss myself. Bruxton ( talk) 23:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The use of multiple sources is generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topicsas this is quite an obscure topic. @ Bruxton: has dismissed themself after other promoters, @ Vaticidalprophet: and @ AirshipJungleman29: expressed interest in promoting the article. I'll accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamitsu ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)