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
Bruxtontalk 20:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The article recently passed GA, so it passes on that level, and I'll assume it's well sourced, has no copyright violations, and is well written based off of that. Looks long enough and the linked source is reliable. It also appears that you haven't had 5 DYKs yet, so no QPQ required. I'll give this the pass, I prefer ALT0 as a hook but I'll leave that to whoever wants to move this any higher. λNegativeMP1 18:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Just a note to the reviewer @
NegativeMP1:. It is up to a reviewer to do a thorough review without assuming that someone else already checked it. We have had DYK articles with issues that have come through the GA process. We need these multiple checks to ensure that we are not featuring an article with issues. As a reviewer you should consider using a checklist like:
Template:DYK checklist. I hope you stick around and keep contributing here. I note
Earwig alerts to a long quote so the 46% is likely not an issue.Bruxton (
talk) 23:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I note for a queue promotor that the hook ALT0 is cited in the first paragraph of the design section in the article. The
Animation Magazine (#8) source seems more reliable than the
/Film one (#32) which is, I think, a blog? Not a DYK issue but a GA one: the blockquote citation is in the wrong place in our article: per
MOS:BLOCKQUOTEIt is conventional to precede a block quotation with an introductory sentence (or sentence fragment) and append the source citation to that line. so someone should move the citation.
Bruxton (
talk) 23:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about that - I'll be sure to perform more extensive reviews in the future. I do think that, from the short glance I took still, there's still nothing absolutely detrimental to the article that'd disqualify it from a DYK appearance. I'd think major issues like that would reer their heads near immediately. λNegativeMP1 08:30, 9 January 2024 (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
Bruxtontalk 20:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The article recently passed GA, so it passes on that level, and I'll assume it's well sourced, has no copyright violations, and is well written based off of that. Looks long enough and the linked source is reliable. It also appears that you haven't had 5 DYKs yet, so no QPQ required. I'll give this the pass, I prefer ALT0 as a hook but I'll leave that to whoever wants to move this any higher. λNegativeMP1 18:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Just a note to the reviewer @
NegativeMP1:. It is up to a reviewer to do a thorough review without assuming that someone else already checked it. We have had DYK articles with issues that have come through the GA process. We need these multiple checks to ensure that we are not featuring an article with issues. As a reviewer you should consider using a checklist like:
Template:DYK checklist. I hope you stick around and keep contributing here. I note
Earwig alerts to a long quote so the 46% is likely not an issue.Bruxton (
talk) 23:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I note for a queue promotor that the hook ALT0 is cited in the first paragraph of the design section in the article. The
Animation Magazine (#8) source seems more reliable than the
/Film one (#32) which is, I think, a blog? Not a DYK issue but a GA one: the blockquote citation is in the wrong place in our article: per
MOS:BLOCKQUOTEIt is conventional to precede a block quotation with an introductory sentence (or sentence fragment) and append the source citation to that line. so someone should move the citation.
Bruxton (
talk) 23:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about that - I'll be sure to perform more extensive reviews in the future. I do think that, from the short glance I took still, there's still nothing absolutely detrimental to the article that'd disqualify it from a DYK appearance. I'd think major issues like that would reer their heads near immediately. λNegativeMP1 08:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)