- 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 97198 (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Shah Rukh Khan edit
... that Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan (pictured) was described as "the world's biggest movie star" by the Los Angeles Times?
- Reviewed: Not a self-nomination
Improved to Good Article status by Bollyjeff (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 10:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC).
Gtg, no copyvio, long and newly improved to ga, no paraphrase instances and original research. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. What the LA Times said is
- He is the biggest movie star you’ve never heard of. And perhaps the world’s biggest movie star, period. In a country of 1.2 billion where movies are a way of life, Khan delights fans with romance, comedy and action, sometimes all in the same movie. (This is Bollywood, after all.)
- That's not at all the same thing. EEng (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
What about this alt hook,
- ALT1... that Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan (pictured) was described as "the biggest movie star you've never heard of" by the Los Angeles Times?
Oceanh (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- New reviewer needed to check ALT1. (Please recheck neutrality and close paraphrasing as well.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1 ends with ".. of. And perhaps the world's biggest movie star, period". Same meaning, so . OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the ALT1 review, this was one of PapaJeckloy's reviews originally, and he's just been blocked indefinitely for subverting a great many DYK processes, including approving his own nominations as a sock and promoting them to prep as well. As such we need a fresh, complete review of this nomination, with apologies to Oceanh and Bollyjeff for further delays—we can't trust anything PapaJeckloy has done, unfortunately. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Alt1 is fine. No obvious signs of copyvio/close paraphrasing and GA review was thorough, recent enough, hook is correctly quoted and sourced to the LA Times. Good to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)