Template:Did you know nominations/Simmie Knox

The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Simmie Knox edit

Created/expanded by Sionk (talk). Self nominated at 13:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC).

  • DYK articles are required to be new. This one is more than a year old. EhthicallyYours! 13:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominated because it's been expanded x5. Sionk (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Eligibility Criteria for DYK, #1A, "For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than five days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article.". I presume that is pretty much clear. EhthicallyYours! 15:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Try reading the first line of the reviewing instructions or beyond (a) of the eligibility criteria. There are a variety of articles that are eligible for DYK. The process is complex, I know! Sionk (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Since this is my first review I'd humbly accept my mistake in this regard. I'm sorry to trouble you. Another reviewer may review this article now. By the way, article is expanded 5x, checked. EhthicallyYours! 17:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Forgiven ;) To be honest I learn something new every time I come here. Sionk (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The following has been checked in this review by Maile
  • QPQ by Sionk
  • BLP, so only 2X expansion is required
  • Article created by Remurmur on June 16, 2006, and pre-expansion length was a Stub class 618 characters of readable prose
  • Expansion began Nov 26, 2013, and currently has 3,075 characters of readable prose
  • Hook is sourced online by Ref 3
  • Duplication Detector shows no copyvio, no close paraphrasing
  • Image used is Bill Clinton's official White House portrait and is licensed on Commons as Pubic Domain
  • All paragraphs seem to be sourced online, but editor needs to re-check which source belongs where. Ref 1 seems to be all right, but others are not necessarily referencing the text they are supposed to.. — Maile (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I checked. I'm usually a stickler for that sort of thing myself. Which one is problematic? NB articles like the one in Washington Post cover two pages, verification of his masters degree is on page 2. Sionk (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
My error. I did not see Page 2. This nomination is good to go. — Maile (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)