Template:Did you know nominations/JoAnn Dean Killingsworth

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 Keilana (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

JoAnn Dean Killingsworth edit

(

)

... that JoAnn Dean Killingsworth became the first person to play Snow White at Disneyland on July 17, 1955 – the theme park's opening day?

Reviewed: Danielle Wineman

Created by Scanlan (talk). Self-nominated at 13:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

QPQ done, long enough, new enough, tag is interesting and sourced. I think GTG, but I'm a first time reviewer and would like someone else to take a look. Alaynestone (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alaynestone: @Scanlan: Thanks for having a go at approving it. You need to check the hook fact, whether its neutral and whether it uses other peoples words too closely, and whether it has at least a ref per paragraph. It looks OK to me apart from the number of refs which was much too many. A fact needs a reference, not four references. I have moved lots and its still over reffed. However that isnt a DYK requirement, so this is OK for DYK. I will let Alaynestone have the pleasure of ticking this. Tip for Scanlan - use just one ref per fact unless the ref is questionable. You also don't need refs in the lead paragraph... but all the facts should be repeated and reffed in the remaining text. Thanks to both of you for contributing. Victuallers (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

. Thanks for the feedback! Alaynestone (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

QPQ provided is incomplete. In particular, it does not address neutrality, copyvios, close paraphrasing, or newness. While I don't regularly reject a QPQ, this one is incomplete enough that a new one is required. Please be careful to address all points listed on the preview screen in your review. ~ Rob^Talk 19:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging nominator @Scanlan: ~ Rob^Talk 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Which QPQ were you referring to? Scanlans review has already gone to main so not sure why he was pinged? Can you restate what you think is missing for Alaynestone if he is the one you mean? Does he need pinging? I will finish the review if necessary. Victuallers (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Victuallers: I was referring to the QPQ supplied by Scanlan. The QPQ nom did go to main, yes, but the review still did not address the majority of the DYK criteria. The prep builder likely checked the missing criteria themselves before promoting it. That doesn't make the partial review fulfill the QPQ requirement. A full review that addresses all DYK criteria (or at least most of them) is required to fulfill the QPQ requirement, as per the nominations page, which states "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed". ~ Rob^Talk 15:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for clarification..... But does Scanlan know this is held. And what does (s)he need to do now? Do we need to hold this nom? I suggest we just note that Scanlan needs to do better next time and just move on. Victuallers (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable foregoing the QPQ requirement, but I did look into whether I'd be willing to donate one of my reviews to pass this along. I discovered that Scanlan has 40+ DYK credits, though, so I don't think it's wise. The problem with allowing partial QPQs through is that it encourages partial reviews in the future, which leads to more work for prep builders and an increased backlog. I'll notify Scanlan on his talk page to ensure that he's aware, although I did ping him already. Any editor could also donate a QPQ if they wished, although I can't say I'd recommend that. ~ Rob^Talk 16:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've had a think about it and I think that we are just being silly/unreasonable. There is no evidence that @Scanlan: failed to do a review s/he just didnt do all the box ticking that some would like. It went through the process without comment and we are now asking for what? I cannot see that we are offering a reasonable resolution. For that reason I will offer my own last QPQ to keep this moving. However this should not be required but this project should appear to act reasonably and I am therefore fixing this by donating a QPQ. (I'm not sure who I'm donating it to. I would have thought we could just agree to let it slip). Victuallers (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

QPQ donation (a second one)

GTG see above Victuallers (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)