Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Atcel Olmedo
- 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 Fuebaey (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Murder of Atcel Olmedo edit
- ... that the murder of Atcel Olmedo remains unsolved because the suspects have never been located?
- Comment: Article was moved from a userspace into the article space on 12 November.
Created/expanded by Gourami Watcher (talk). Self nominated at 14:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
- Comment By the rules, this nomination should have been posted as a November 12th listing for DYK. I'll leave the necessary move/consequences up to Admin.
- The lead of this article should be a summary of the text that follows, not an introduction to the tale a la essay. Until a proper lead is supplied, I see no reason to review this nomination.
- Despite what seems to be discouragement above, I hope the author will continue with this article, if only for the off chance it may help lock up some murderous S.O.B.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I put the nomination in the correct place, I'm very new to the DYK part of Wikipedia, sometimes the directions can be confusing. As for the lead, I'll work out the kinks. Thanks, --GouramiWatcherpride 17:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- This was no big deal, as far as nomination problems go.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done! --GouramiWatcherpride 17:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think you have caught onto the concept that the casual reader will quit viewing after the lead. Many will leave your article having read only that. i know it seems backward to present the summary first, but that's WP.
- I will leave the review to someone more expert on the subject.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts have inline citations. The article is neutral and I detected no close paraphrasing issues. Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
