- 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 Jolly Ω Janner 18:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rey (Star Wars) edit
- ... that Rey from Star Wars: The Force Awakens has received critical acclaim?
ALT1: ... that J. J. Abrams wrote Rey for Star Wars: The Force Awakens because he believed it was important to have a strong female lead character?ALT2: ... that some critics compared Rey from Star Wars: The Force Awakens to Han Solo and Luke Skywalker?- ALT3: ... that some critics likened Rey from Star Wars: The Force Awakens to a "new feminist icon" and a "geek feminist wish-fulfillment"?
- ALT4: ... that some fans consider Rey from Star Wars: The Force Awakens to a be a "Mary Sue"?
- Reviewed:
IOUTemplate:Did you know nominations/Thilawa of Yamethin - Comment: I only just noticed this article meets DYK criteria, so I'm trying to nom this quickly before my family realizes what I'm doing on Christmas morning. That means I'll do IOU and the hook is rough and unrefined.
- Reviewed:
Created by Muboshgu (talk) and Skykiller93 (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 16:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC).
Per DYK rules, you need an inline citation right after the hook fact in the article (it's a silly rule if you ask me, but I didn't make it). I'll take it on good faith that you'll do the QPQ review when you have time. Finally, not a pass/fail issue, but surely there's a more interesting hook to be had? What about the stardom the role has brought to Daisy Ridley? Or something about her being a strong female protagonist? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Right, that was just a quick hook I threw in there as a placeholder to make sure this got nom'd before it's eligibility expired. I'll think of a better one, and take care of the QPQ and inline citation tomorrow. I was just about to sign off for tonight when you posted here. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Okay it's Monday and I'm back. I've added some ALT hooks and a QPQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Brilliant. Personally, I like all the alts better than the original proposal. Alts 1 and two don't appear in the prose, though, so I can't approve them. If you want them to be considered, they'll need to be written into the article and sourced. Alt 3 and Alt 4, on the other hand, are good to go (). The article is new enough, long enough, there are no major policy concerns (V, NPOV, copyvio), and QPQ was done. I've put the litle tick mark thingy next to the approved hooks just to make it easier for whoever moves this to the prep. @Muboshgu: just ping me if you want me to review the other two alts again and I'll come back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Brilliant. Personally, I like all the alts better than the original proposal. Alts 1 and two don't appear in the prose, though, so I can't approve them. If you want them to be considered, they'll need to be written into the article and sourced. Alt 3 and Alt 4, on the other hand, are good to go (
