Template:Did you know nominations/The Anita Krajnc Case
- 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 PFHLai (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Anita Krajnc Case edit
- ... that the Anita Krajnc case could result in her spending ten years in prison for giving water to thirsty pigs on their way to slaughter?
Created/expanded by Yogesh Khandke (talk). Self-nominated at 19:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC).
- It's current news in Canada and elsewhere. MaynardClark (talk)
- Review
New article, timely nominated. Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral (even innocuous given the underlying events); cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. Earwig's copy violation detector: The Anita Krajnc Case report gives it a clean bill. Hook is hooky enough, I think, and relates directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ not done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- 7&6=thirteen, I only see three previous DYKs by this user, which would normally mean that no QPQ should be required. Is there a particular reason you are requesting one here? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are right. I was wrong. Thanks for catching that.
7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
