Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/YinzCam

< Template:Did you know nominations
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  Ohc ¡digame! 03:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

YinzCam, Priya Narasimhan edit

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Created by GrapedApe (talk). Self nominated at 22:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

  • Article YinzCam was new on the date nominated. So was Priya Narasimhan. Both articles are over 1500 characters of prose. I think that the content in the notes group of footnotes might better be put into a table or set of lists -- it is hard to correlate with the article prose in my view -- but that is not a policy violation.Many of the sources are primary, more than I like, but that may be hard to avoid in this type of article, and there are enough to 3rd party sources to make notability pretty clear in my view. Still is there any way we could get more independent sources? The hook is inline-cited separately. The article doesn't indicate the outcome of the suit by Kangaroo Media. Is it still in progress? if not, who won? The hook is all right but not very "surprising". It is also 191 characters long, getting close to the limit. Can it be shortened? There are ample, if not excessive, inline citations for the article as a whole. Sources seem quite reliable, allowing for the caveat about primary sources on YinzCam. Articles and hook seem neutral and within policy. QPQ done.No other issues that I saw. DES (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


    • There do not appear to be sources on the progress of the Kangaroo lawsuit. I suspect that it is ongoing. I will consider your critiques about the notes and the independent sources, but, as you pointed out, those are matters of style/taste, not policy or content. --GrapedApe (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
      • If there are no sources that report on the outcome of the suit, could we say "There are no reports on the outcome as of February 2014"? If there is a source that actually reports it as ongoing, we can cite that, of course. DES (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
        • There are no sources stating anything about the suit other than it was filed. I'm of the opinion that when there are no sources, then the article should be silent, otherwise WP:OR is violated. --GrapedApe (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC) To solve this issue, I've removed any reference of the suit. This should be ready for DYK now.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs to be checked to be sure the original issues identified by DES's review have been fully addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • lawsuit issues dealt with. None of the other issues I raised is a bar to DYK placement, I think. Should be good to go, although having a ore experienced DYK reviewwer look it over might be good. DES (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question: This is a double-nom. Do we need double QPQs? --PFHLai (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, a second QPQ is required for a two-article nomination. Notifying GrapedApe talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Good catch, PFHLai. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/YinzCam&oldid=594927328"