Template:Did you know nominations/Steps of Cincinnati
The following is an archived discussion of Steps of Cincinnati's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Steps of Cincinnati edit
- ... that the Steps of Cincinnati once stretched over 30 miles (48 km)?
Created by Gilliam (talk). Self nominated at 10:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC).
Article was created and nominated on 25 March, and is about 2300 characteres, satisfying length and date criteria. References verified, but the reference style is poor, as little information is provided about the references used (for example, the entirety of one ref is the link and the title "Table of Contents"); please use citation templates, and provide at least the title, author, publisher, and accessdate, as well as other available info like publishing date or year, URL for online sources, archive info (eg - for the last ref), etc. Please also fix close paraphrasing issues, such as "The City has formed the City Hillside Step Information System as a means of keeping inventory of the steps as well as a log of inspections and repairs." which is copied from the source, but with two words substituted. Once these issues are resolved, the nomination can be approved. Mindmatrix 16:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)- Note also that this nomination requires a QPQ review. Mindmatrix 16:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Citations are now consistent. Original prose is written thoughout. QPQ review has been posted at the excellent article in Template:Did you know nominations/Suicide in the United Kingdom.Gilliam (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The article is now fine. Although you've done a QPQ, you really ought to do one for an article that has yet to receive a review. (That nomination had already been reviewed by someone else, there's no need for a second review.) I'll ask others if the review you've done is acceptable in this case. Mindmatrix 21:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it isn't a valid QPQ for DYK purposes: the whole point behind quid pro quo reviews are to get articles that still need reviewing a review. There are a great many nominations still unreviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Papa Cristo's, and mentioned issues there that need attention. - Gilliam (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it isn't a valid QPQ for DYK purposes: the whole point behind quid pro quo reviews are to get articles that still need reviewing a review. There are a great many nominations still unreviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Citations are now consistent. Original prose is written thoughout. QPQ review has been posted at the excellent article in Template:Did you know nominations/Suicide in the United Kingdom.Gilliam (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
All outstanding issues have been addressed, and QPQ has been completed. (But please make sure to follow up to responses on your review at Template:Did you know nominations/Papa Cristo's.) Good to go. Mindmatrix 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
