This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
The Hillbilly Thomists is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
A fact from The Hillbilly Thomists appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 October 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Latest comment: 23 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion
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.
Overall: I’m not at all an experienced reviewer (or editor for that matter) but I believe I understand the DYK criteria well rn to try and help out with the backlog, so if anyone else has comments or if I did something wrong by all means please bring them up! I’d like to particularly request a second opinion on the image licensing (since I’m not sure how having people in a self work affects things). PixDeVlyell talk to me!16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
PS: remember to post {{subst:DYKproblem|[Name of article]|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the relevant user's talk page when you review a hook and don't pass it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Pbritti: Fixed the lead part, someone on the Discord also mentioned WP:LEADCITE, so thank you both, I'll keep it in mind next time I do a review, as well as the notice. Thank you! I'd personally pass this, but at the least for this first and maybe few other reviews, I'll leave it as requesting a second opinion. --PixDeVlyell talk to me!16:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Providing a second opinion here on PixDeVl's request off-wiki. The initial review was mostly good and it looks like the LEADCITE thing was clarified above; no problems there. The image is correctly licensed, which isn't affected by having people as its subject in this context, at least in the United States. The only other concern I had was on the use of Aleteia as a source, as it was criticized at an RSN discussion. However, their about page indicates they have some editorial oversight and the article only uses them for uncontroversial information, so I don't think this is a sticking issue. Approved! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply