Template:Did you know nominations/Through the Wilderness

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) 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Through the Wilderness

(

)

... ~~that the idea for the Madonna tribute album, Through the Wilderness, appeared in a dream, to label head Paul Beahan?~~ Source: Spin magazine

Reviewed: ~~John Dominis Holt, II~~ Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Alexander

5x expanded by IndianBio (talk). Self-nominated at 14:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC).

Hook cited to RS (Spin Magazine) and is of correct length. Article represents a 5x expansion from its last update in March (not counting characters appearing in lists). NPOV and no copyvio. Hook is interesting and QPQ done. All other criteria met. GTG. LavaBaron (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The QPQ listed above is not valid. A detailed explanation is on that template, but IndianBio "review" on that template did not touch the criteria for a DYK review, and therefore is invalid. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I will wait for a DYK delegate to comment on the QPQ, not you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I have commented at the John Dominis Holt, II nomination. The DYK process does not have formal delegates, like the FA process, for example; it functions on individual action and (if needed) community consensus. I have views that QPQ credits should be removed when reviews are inadequate and issues are not addressed, so a reviewer could unilaterally deny this QPQ but that is a potentially controversial / questionable application of reviewer authority. I am uncertain that Maile66 or I (or anyone else) has the authority to unilaterally require a new QPQ review if the nominator does not consent, and especially in the situation where another reviewer (LavaBaron) has accepted the credit. So, I will post at WT:DYK to seek community consensus in this case. For me, this is a case dealing with a specific principle on QPQ credits where the adequacy of the review is in question, so I do apologise to IndianBio if you feel unfairly targeted, as that is not my intent. EdChem (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Uninvolved input requested. EdChem (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you EdChem, lets see what other participants feel about this and based on community consensus I will do another QPQ. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I've no view on the above issue, but the hook is a little mangled... That's not how commas work. I've proposed an alternative below. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that the idea for Through the Wilderness, a Madonna tribute album, came in a dream to Paul Beahan?

I gladly support this ALT1 too. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

EdChem should I add another QPQ here, or should I wait for this review to be closed? Please guide me as the discussion was not clear about the procedure. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

IndianBio I would just post a link here, noting you did the additional review. Thank you for responding as you have. EdChem (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you EdChem I recently reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Alexander. And as discussed above, noting the review here. I have also notified the original nominator of that dyk for fixing a minor issue. Please let me know if anything else would be required. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: thank you for doing the additional review, it covers all the DYK criteria and all aspects of it that I have cross-checked are confirmed. It is certainly suitable for QPQ credit, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: You were the one to raise queries about this nomination on the grounds of QPQ grounds. Are you satisfied by the new review which IndianBio has provided? IB has agreed to the ALT1 hook over the ALT0, so I think it will be the hook given the tick. LavaBaron has reviewed the article and, as far as I am aware, the accuracy / validity / etc. of that review has not been questioned. So, I see no impediment to this review being given a tick, but I would like your input first. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio and EdChem: Good job on the new QPQ. I no longer have any objections to this nomination passing if you want to green tick it and sign off on it. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Maile's concerns have been addressed by IndianBio doing another review, which I appreciate and have approved. Redrafted hook has been accepted by the nominator and language is a significant improvement, so I am striking ALT0. No other aspects of the original review have been questioned, so I am relying on them to conclude that the nomination is ready for promotion using ALT1 as the hook. EdChem (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)