Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Princess María Teresa of Bourbon-Parma

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Yoninah (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Princess María Teresa of Bourbon-Parma

(
)

Created by Robertsky (talk) and Kingsif (talk). Nominated by Kingsif (talk) at 17:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC).

  • Her "Red Princess" nickname needs to be directly cited to her socialist activism/views. Article is looking good, but DYK check is flagging that the article has appeared on ITN before. I've never heard of this issue before, but I'm guessing that since her name has been taking off RD this should be good to go? Let me know. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've added a bit to connect the nickname and the socialism more clearly, thanks for the quick review! Kingsif (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yep, the source reads that her "self-managing socialism" gave her that nickname. QPQ done too, so this should be a very quick good-to-go. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not appropriate for a DYK yet; there is still a controversy ever about whether the article title is even appropriate: See Talk:Princess María Teresa of Bourbon-Parma and recent article history for contradictory page renamings. We shouldn't be putting "Did You Know" items up for people whose article names aren't even settled yet. --Closeapple (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Closeapple: There's no notice template for a discussion at the top of the article, so there wouldn't be any actual problems with posting this DYK at the moment. Start a formal talk page discussion if you want to hold out from this being promoted. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Closeapple: Read WP:RM#CM so that the page can be tagged for having a controversial title (I see you have a problem with the 'Princess' prefix). Let me know if you need any other help! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move discussion underway. Yoninah (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move discussion closed with no consensus. robertsky (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The original review by Nice4What did not specifically mention many of the DYK criteria ("looking good" is not adequate), so it's important that this be done prior to restoring the approval tick. I see no mention of newness, length, neutrality of hook and article (especially important in a BLP), article sourcing, and close paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism check. Note that the ITN appearance in the Recent Deaths section does not count; if it had been a full blurb in the main section, that would have permanently disqualified the article from appearing at DYK, but RD appearances do not count, though DYKcheck will flag them based on the article talk-page template. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Looks good" is a catch all. Appropriate sourcing, new enough, long enough... it meant it went through the DYK check. I went through the sourcing of the hook, and even discussed this above. This isn't my first DYK review, so it shouldn't be taken so critically... The article now passes. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, as bare URLs are not adequate sourcing in DYK articles, and this one has two such references, approval is superseded for now. Nice4What, the point here is that all reviews should be specific in what criteria have been checked. As it says at WP:DYKN#How to review a nomination, Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed. New reviewer or someone who has done hundreds, it should be the same every time. Going forward, you now know that not only is completeness needed—this shouldn't have been accepted as a QPQ as it had been—but knowing what was checked makes the work of people who promote nominations that much easier when they doublecheck prior to promotion. Even now, you didn't mention checking for copyvio or neutrality. (I was aware you had checked for hook sourcing, and didn't mention it in my comment.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Requesting second reviewer. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: To be fair to Nice4What, that bare url wasn't there when they first reviewed the article on 31 March. It was included on 4 April. I have sourced for a better reference anyway, given that the bare url goes to a blogspot domain. robertsky (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks like it passes all criteria. --evrik (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Princess_María_Teresa_of_Bourbon-Parma&oldid=1022216389"