- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 12:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Aciliu Viaduct
edit- ... that at completion the 80 m (260 ft) high Aciliu Viaduct will be the highest in Romania?
Created by Bine Mai (talk). Self nominated at 13:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC).
– Article is new and sufficiently long. Hook fact is interesting and cited with an inline citation. You are supposed to review another editor's nomination. — Bill william comptonTalk 15:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Notified Bine Mai on their talk page.— Maile (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Reviewed Mary Hamilton Swindler BineMai 22:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Notified Bine Mai on their talk page.— Maile (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Regrettably, the Mary Hamilton Swindler "review" is not a valid quid pro quo review. Especially as you are a new reviewer, the review needs to specify what criteria were checked, so we know that a full review was done: size, newness, hook appears in article, hook sourcing, hook and article neutrality, adequate sourcing, close paraphrasing check, and so on. "Good to go", even if signed, is not adequate. You might want to consult the DYK reviewing guide, and the DYK rules and supplemental rules that go into greater depth. Please let us know when you've completed a full review, and be sure to link directly to the template where the review is posted, rather than the article, so it's easier to find. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I reviewed another article since someone already reviewed my first one about Mary Hamilton Swindler so here it is 1956 Anjar earthquake. BineMai 17:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
[[File:Symbol voting keep.svg|16px]]– Good to go! — Bill william comptonTalk 18:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Pulled from prep area: Following a copy edit, this article is now too short. Harrias talk 15:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Article is now long enough, but should be checked to see whether the new material also needs copyediting. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- The following has been checked in this review by Matty.007
- QPQ query (TBed BlueMoonset: you didn't address all aspects of a DYK review, i.e. paraphrasing, neutrality...)
- Article created by Bine on 12 December 2013, and has 1655 characters of readable prose
- Every paragraph is sourced (AGF on foreign sources)
- Earwig @ Toolserver found no copyvios
- Hook is interesting and well sourced (I think the pylons being 80m is OK with the hook)
- Article is neutral
- Article needs either sections of a small expansion, as I feel it is a bit bare — Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 11 January 2014
- I have to confess that I'm a bit disappointed that, after I explained what was needed for a QPQ, all that was done was size, newness, and hook, even though that is superior to "good to go". On the other hand, the initial review of this nomination covered only those three issues, plus QPQ (which was not relevant on the second one Bine Mai did). I'll leave it to you to decide whether to accept the less-than-thorough review from a novice this once, with the understanding that such leniency will not be given for future reviews, or to require more this time.
- Can you be more specific about what additional information is needed in the article? (Adding section headers is merely cosmetic, and shouldn't affect DYK worthiness.) While WP:DYKSG#D7 does say that "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected", it would definitely help to note where the article falls short (what sorts of details or information are missing). Thanks. BTW, Matty.007, you should always add a sig—or at least a date and time—at the end of your reviews, even if your name leads them off. I've added the date/time info.
- Finally, a recent convert template in a hook was summarily deleted, and I'm not sure I like the formatting as it isn't very grammatical. (It's also missing a comma.) Here's another way to do it:
- ALT format: ... that at completion, the 80-meter-high Aciliu Viaduct will be the highest in Romania? —BlueMoonset (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Finally, a recent convert template in a hook was summarily deleted, and I'm not sure I like the formatting as it isn't very grammatical. (It's also missing a comma.) Here's another way to do it:
OK, I think that is all OK now then. Thanks, Matty.007 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)