The result was: promoted by
PFHLai (
talk) 10:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by User:Horsegeek. Self-nominated at 17:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC).
The article is new enough (moved from sandbox to mainspace), long enough, hooks are short enough, article is neutral. This is only the third DYK this user has nominated, so no qpq needed. BUT...
The original Hook is catchy, and sourced, but we don't even know the topic is a horse (which may be the point, which is clever) However... I found it a bit too clever, so proposed ALT2. ALT1 is probably a bit too in-universe for non-horse people, plus it's unsourced. It can't be used unless you add a footnote for it. (and one of the sources says he led the list at age 11, not 6...) Also, I spotted a bit of close paraphrasing and some unsourced bits you need to fix. I went into the article and tagged those spots and did some rewriting to clean up the problem areas I spotted. So, because I'm no longer a neutral reviewer, given that I proposed a hook and edited the article we need a different person to complete the review.
Montanabw
(talk) 05:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
New reviewer needs to review the hooks and the article revisions.
Montanabw
(talk) 05:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
PFHLai (
talk) 10:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by User:Horsegeek. Self-nominated at 17:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC).
The article is new enough (moved from sandbox to mainspace), long enough, hooks are short enough, article is neutral. This is only the third DYK this user has nominated, so no qpq needed. BUT...
The original Hook is catchy, and sourced, but we don't even know the topic is a horse (which may be the point, which is clever) However... I found it a bit too clever, so proposed ALT2. ALT1 is probably a bit too in-universe for non-horse people, plus it's unsourced. It can't be used unless you add a footnote for it. (and one of the sources says he led the list at age 11, not 6...) Also, I spotted a bit of close paraphrasing and some unsourced bits you need to fix. I went into the article and tagged those spots and did some rewriting to clean up the problem areas I spotted. So, because I'm no longer a neutral reviewer, given that I proposed a hook and edited the article we need a different person to complete the review.
Montanabw
(talk) 05:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
New reviewer needs to review the hooks and the article revisions.
Montanabw
(talk) 05:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)