Template:Did you know nominations/Chen Mingxia

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  MPJ-DK  20:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Chen Mingxia

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

* ... that Chen Mingxia served three Chinese dynasties in less than two years and that he was executed by the third one for a matter of dress code?

ALT1 ... that Chen Mingxia served three Chinese dynasties in less than two years, and was executed by the third one for a dress code violation?

ALT2 ... that Chen Mingxia served three Chinese dynasties in less than two years, and was executed by the third one for questioning the dress code?

Created/expanded by Madalibi (talk). Self-nominated at 12:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC).

• New enough (moved to mainspace Sept 9); long enough; good notes and sources; no copyright or plagiarism; no problem with image; hook interesting. According to QPQ finder, Madalibi has five credits.

question -- hook is well documented but not in one place or with one note.ch (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi @CWH: thank you for doing this review so quickly! I had forgotten that 5th DYK of mine. I will do a QPQ review in the next few days. In the mean time, I added a phrase to the end of the hook. Let me know if you prefer the shorter version or this one. I'm not familiar enough with DYK guidelines to judge whether the hook should be referenced in one or several footnotes. I do see that 3 of my 5 DYKs contained multiple facts, so I would say this is not a problem, but if course I'm not the reviewer. :) Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Hi again ch – I just finished reviewing the DYK nomination for Rosalie Lalonde for QPQ. I will let you know when the issues I raised have been solved! Madalibi (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Madalibi: For clarification, a QPQ review does not need to result in an approval or rejection for it to count as a QPQ so you don't need to inform the reviewer of the result of it. An "issues remain" review counts the same as one with a tick or cross as long as the DYK criteria have been assessed. Cowlibob (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Good to go Thanks to Cowlibob for the clarification and to Madalibi for the interesting article and quick response.ch (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, then! Thanks to both of you for the review and advice! Madalibi (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@CWH:, @Cowlibob:, and @Madalibi:. I've added a more concise ALT1 that I hope you will find improves a little on the already strong hook. Edwardx (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Edwardx, CWH, and Cowlibob: Thanks for the idea, Edwardx! ALT1 is more concise and does sound better, but I would worry it is no longer accurate, as Chen himself did not violate the dress code: he only suggested it be changed. I'll let you guys decide! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: and @Madalibi:: How do you feel about Alt2?

Have to admit that I didn't read the article through, and did not fully appreciate the detail of the dress code issue. Will strike ALT1. Edwardx (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Edwardx: ALT2 made me laugh! It sounds appropriately incongruous and funny — because "questioning the dress code" sounds so *not* like something you would get executed for — while respecting the sources, so it sounds like a great hook! I will let our reviewer ch decide which version he prefers. Thanks again for your ideas! Madalibi (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Good to go with the revised Alt2 ch (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• You forgot this 20:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)