User talk:BlueMoonset/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Merry Christmas!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Inre Template:Did you know nominations/Thermal Man

Hey BlueMoonset, I see that you are very involved with the DYK process. Could you please take a look at the linked nomination once again? I would like the hook to be published on the 28th, for it is Stan Lee's birthday. Excelsior! THAT AMAZING GUY (Give your friendly bro a love note or two!) 09:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

THAT AMAZING GUY, I just took a look, and there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed. I think it's still possible to get this in on Stan Lee's birthday, though it'll be close. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't wait... My first DYK! :D Stan's turning 91, and I am sure the whole of Marveldom is happy for him. Including me! Cheers, THAT AMAZING GUY (Give your friendly bro a love note or two!) 12:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

GA reviews

You can feel free to put Charmed back in; I'm planning on going through FFT's article. At this stage I'm a little concerned that the article might have a fair number of problems that may need some time to fix. The Holidays just took a lot out of me so it became difficult to keep up with Wikipedia, let alone the GA reviews. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Really Nice View for Really Nice Work Award
		Hello BlueMoonset, I saw that you have been doing some really nice work on Wikipedia, including helping me a lot getting started with DYK preps, and making me surprised that you aren't an admin; I thought that you deserved to be the sixth recipient of the 'Really Nice View' award. Congratulations, have an award from a non sock! Matty.007 19:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The Excelsior "Invisible" Star

	Excelsior "Invisible" Star
	Thank you, BlueMoonset, for your selfless contributions to Wikipedia as a whole, and DYK in particular. Stan would be proud. Here's one to him and you! Excelsior! :-) THAT AMAZING GUY (Give your friendly bro a love note or two!) 12:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Coming from an "invisible" sock, that's fairly rich. Would Stan be proud of you? I wonder. Tell you what, Bonkers: when you do try to put on another sock, please stay off my page. Thank you. (Needless to say, this "star" won't be placed in my permanent collection, since it was given illicitly.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah well, rest assured that there are some non-socks who appreciate the work you do... Me included. Matty.007 20:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Matty.007, thanks. I meant to ask whether you were happy with the BBC WWI centenary DYK placement on January 1 itself. We don't seem to have any other special hooks for New Years Day, but I thought you wanted early January but not January 1, yet the hook is under January 1 and likely to be promoted quite soon, since December 31 has already been so. Let me know; I can adjust it if you'd like. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• I only suggested that it went up in the actual centenary year itself, personally I think 1 January would be great. Thanks, Matty.007 19:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's great, then. It's about due to be promoted; I think the currently uninhabited Prep 3 would be its most likely (and probably best) home. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you technically close a GA review of an article already a GA

The usual GA-regulars who I've asked haven't responded to my initial attempts to ask the question in a few days, but I reviewed an article that has been a GA for a while, but the contributor/nominator wanted it reviewed again after adding a lot of new material. I wanted to make sure there finishing/concluding/closing the review wasn't a technical challenge or problem since it was a unique situation. Could you take a look at: Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/GA1 and instruct me on what the best way would be?--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wizardman's probably the best person to ask, ColonelHenry; he usually responds quickly on his talk page when I have questions. I've never had to deal with this situation or one like it, and he'd probably know what should be done even if he hasn't run into the situation before. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll reach out to him.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ruth_A._Parmelee

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ruth_A._Parmelee...can you check out the questions raised there please? Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

So what do you suggest I do? Rereview the DYK nomination that haven't fully reviewed or just find a new nomination to review? Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Entirely up to you. Just make sure the review is comprehensive. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

You killed a perfectly good DYK. It had gone through and been approved. You were late to the game, and exercised your liberum veto. Rather like dealing with the Queen of hearts or more fittingly the Red Queen. Life and wikipedia are not zero sum games. But I learnt my lesson. Won't waste my time again. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Huh? But 7&6 hasn't edited DYK in over two weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah. After Harrias's objections on December 23 (and Fram's before that, which had been the reason it was pulled from prep in the first place), it sat there with a big X for those weeks and no action was taken to try to deal with their very real and cogent objections. So I closed it. Lots of previously approved articles have that approval overturned when issues are noticed later; usually, nominators work to address those issues, but this one was left hanging. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Prince of Wales F.C. DYK

I have responded to your concerns about the Prince of Wales F.C. DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you give it another look? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I'm afraid there are major issues with the article, and the new hook wasn't supported by the source as far as I could see. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Questionable notability articles

Hello,

I noticed you nominated the article "Choose Your Battles" for deletion. In that case, here are other articles you would also probably regard as having questionable notability (if any notability) per the rationale you mentioned:

• Dressin' Up
• Hummingbird Heartbeat (once was decided to keep, but I noticed this decision has been questioned)
• Pearl (Katy Perry song)
• Who Am I Living For?
• It Takes Two (Katy Perry song)
• By the Grace of God (song)
• Legendary Lovers
• Birthday (Katy Perry song)
• Double Rainbow (song)

Not sure if they'll end up being deleted or not, but they definitely haven't reached the notability standards you mentioned. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to nominate them yourself: you're the one who searched them out. I only did Choose Your Battles because it was nominated for DYK, and when I noticed it seemed to need a new reviewer, I discovered instead that it was clearly problematic per WP:NSONG guidelines, which is why I initiated the AfD. It's certainly true that non-notable songs from notable albums by notable artists are nevertheless being written up in their own articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I nominate an article for deletion? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There are three main ways (four if it's a biography of a living person), and they are described at WP:DELETE. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This is completely unfair. They may not be singles but they do have a lot of information which can't be inserted into the album page. Plus, if you're going to delete all these WikiProject Katy Perry articles; just check WikiProject Rihanna. I actually 'took inspiration' from the Rihanna song articles since they are well sourced but they don't really have much more notability than our articles. Plus, they're GAs. prism △ 17:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Mangrove Robin

Hey BlueMoonset! Could you restore the green tick you gave to my DYK nom above? A user overruled it with a question mark due to a minor and trivial grammatical issue which I've already fixed. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

AFD

Why should "Double Rainbow" be deleted as there is plenty of information, plus, it is a GA? prism △ 17:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Prism, what it comes down to here, as it does with all songs (in this case), is what makes a song notable by itself: Is it very popular, is it unusual in a way that makes a wide number of people talk about it especially, do a large number of artists cover it, and so on. WP:NSONG is very specific about song notability. By the very nature of things, not every song on an album is going to be notable, regardless of how famous the artist is, or how famous the album is. The whole idea of notability is that it isn't inheritable. I have seen song articles become GAs and then be deleted entirely a couple of weeks later: an article can be quite well written and sourced, and have a bunch of information, yet be about someone or something that simply isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Having read both "Double Rainbow" and "Choose Your Dreams", I don't see that either song is notable, but I realize that my view, though backed up by the WP:NSONG criteria, may not prevail. I don't plan on exhaustively going through WikiProjects Katy Perry or Rihanna or any of the others to do a massive cleanout—that's up to other people. But I've seen this with other artists and albums, and if they come through DYK where I am active, I will point out notability issues, and start AfDs where appropriate. It's never fun to have your work undone, but if you continue to work on songs that Wikipedia standards say aren't notable, you should be prepared for this to happen again. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Per the explanation given, only the six singles and three promotional singles from Teenage Dream, the two singles from Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection, and the three singles and promotional single "Walking On Air" from Prism are really notable. Sorry, though. As for Rihanna articles, only the singles and promotional singles and other tracks that have received significant attention are notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure then... will I lose all my Wikipedia points for those articles, in case they're deleted though? prism △ 18:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What points do you mean? If WikiCup, you'll have to ask one of the judges there (J Milburn, probably). If not, you'll have to explain. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I meant WikiCup. Sorry. By the way, I agree with the deletion of most articles there since they aren't notable, but not with By the Grace of God (song) which is referenced above and it is covered by a lot of websites, you could just search in Google and a lot will appear, plus the entire article is mostly sourced by non-review links, including Background section, Live performances and most of Composition section. Plus it's the only song from Prism that was reported a lot, due to its kind of controversial theme. prism △ 20:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

By "only song from Prism that was reported a lot", I can only guess this is not counting the album's three singles and "Walking On Air". Upon reviewing its article, "By the Grace of God" is certainly more notable than "Dressin' Up", "Hummingbird Heartbeat", "Pearl", "Who Am I Living For?", and all the other Prism tracks that havent been released as singles or promo singles. so that might instead get redirected (at least until released as single/promo single) while the others mentioned get deleted. I still find its overall notability questionable, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant not-single songs, sorry. prism △ 22:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy of Talk:Accounting research/GA1

Hello! Out of curiosity, how did you come to the conclusion that the review page was created by mistake? - Well-rested^Talk 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well-rested, it was because the account that created it turned around and edited the page 15 minutes later to delete the "Reviewer" line—taking him- or herself off the review. Without the person as reviewer, it neuters the review and messes up the bot that parses these pages. In my experience, someone who creates a review page and then blanks all or part of it has mistakenly created it. The page therefore needs to be deleted because a real reviewer can't come along and choose the nomination for reviewing until the neutered page is gone.

Anothor possibility is that Simplysavvy looked over the article, and after 15 minutes decided it was Class B—rather than ready for GA—cleared his or her name off the review page and then edited the talk page to give it a B-class rating for the Accountancy WikiProject. If so, that shows a clear lack of understanding of how GAN works. Given that Simplysavvy is a relatively new user with fewer than 200 total edits, I figured that this was clearly the case, so it was an easy call to have the mistake cleaned up by deleting the abortive review page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok. Thanks for helping to clean that up then. Didn't notice it since it's been a while (a long while) since I've done a GA review. -Well-rested^Talk 03:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about moving review pages

Thanks for moving my review page, I see that I confused Legobot in the GAN page and the nominator's talk page. So is does moving it quickly prevent this from happening or is it best to just wait for the review to get over, let legobot finish its business and then move the page? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ugog Nizdast, Legobot runs every ten minutes, so if you move both the article and the review talk page between runs, all will be smooth. However, confusing Legobot isn't an issue by itself, since it eventually gets straightened out: the important thing is to move the review page as quickly as possible after you move the article being reviewed, so there isn't confusion for reviewers or other people wanting to take a look: the GAN page can't find the review if the article moves but not the review, so people trying to get to it using the links can't use the link to find it either. Eventually someone will notice and fix the problem—it shows up as an issue on the Report page within 24 hours. I actually saw it before then; when Legobot mentions a user named "Example" in its edit summary, it's a sure sign that the review page isn't where it should be (i.e., the GA nominee template on the article talk page says its status is "onreview", but the review page indicated doesn't exist or is in the wrong place). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright I understand it now, sorry for this screw-up and thanks for your help. Maybe this can be mentioned in some help page? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just passed the review and I'm not sure if it worked. Legobot didn't do it's usual job of adding the GA icon, transcluding the review, telling the nominator and updating the nomination page (but it got removed later during maintenance). I followed the usual procedures: updated the article talk page and added to the list? What have I done wrong? Sorry for this again, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong. My understanding is that the bot doesn't do all the work right away. It may note that the nomination was passed, or it just may cause the nomination to disappear as part of a Maintenance edit since it frequently has trouble identifying passes and fails (which is what happened at 17:42). For the icon and all the rest, however, it seems to run only once a day at a minute after midnight UTC time to see if there are any GA updates it needs to make. Checking Legobot's log file, I see the following entry for 00:01 today: "ERROR: Could not find oldid for Talk:Asia Bibi blasphemy case". It does retry the ones that returned an error daily for a few days at least, so this may be self-repairing. In the meantime, you can always add the GA icon to the article yourself... BlueMoonset (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reconsider

Hi, I think you have over reacted at DYK. I concede that the situation could be misinterpreted and I think that is what has happened. However for you to hit out at @Johnbod and the people who did do the review like @Babelstone is arbitrary. You will see by my wording that I very carefully comment only on the hooks accuracy and length as you had requested. There is not enough information there to underwrite a proper review - clearly that was not my intention. The review was done by Babelstone and that was confirmed by your own comment. Babelstone's only problem was that he could not approve his own hooks Can you please reconsider your position. Victuallers (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You misinterpret me if you think I hit out at Johnbod or any of the others; my intent was to give both of the creators a chance to take over once you made that potentially fatal error, since in my view it was no longer possible for you to continue as nominee. I see Johnbod has done so, and I'm happy to let the nomination proceed. Victuallers, you put a tick on your own nomination—a tick is what gives it final approval, and it's what was wrong. I suspect it's your misunderstanding of how DYK works that got you into this mess: you may have intended a comment, but what you did was an approval.

From my perspective, the overreaction was on your end: you called me "divisive" at the same time you claimed that "The symbol notes that the approval is now complete given your summary." My "summary" said this needed an "independent reviewer"; as nominator, how could you possibly be independent about approving your own nomination? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

New R. S. J. Public School

Thanks for explaining that on the talk page. I for one entirely missed that 3rd GA nomination, and several of us have been trying to explain what still needs to be done to improve the article - a fresh voice putting it in different words is helpful. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Yngvadottir. I hope it did help. I've also tried to straighten out the names of the first two; right now, I'm still waiting on my non-controversial technical move of the GA1 from the old article name to the new one; right now the GA1 under the new name is a redirect to GA2, which could be a bit confusing. (Actually, you're an admin, aren't you? It's right there in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, if you want to finish straightening this out.)

I should probably say that if the third nomination is still there in 36 hours, I'll either delete it myself or quickfail it. I did notice the discussion on Pramath's talk page a short while ago, which I hadn't seen when I was cleaning up the article's talk page, and while I'm happy to explain, I can't see allowing it to stand if that explanation is not promptly acted on. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Pramath just deleted the GA nominee template. Great to see. I clearly need to be more patient... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I had to leave for work (now on break) but I see AnthonyAppleyard did it. Yes, Pratham is learning :-) But I hope he remembers I did say I can't help him with the article any more if it does get near GA level! Yngvadottir (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I'm glad it's done, and sorry I missed you. On a completely unrelated subject, I see that Drmies has pinged you on Template:Did you know nominations/Thor Heyerdahl Upper Secondary School looking for hook ideas, but since pinging doesn't work from Template space, I'm lazily doing it here rather than going to your page. (Mentoz86 nominated it.)

I've been pretending not to see that - Mentoz' nominating it was a compliment, and there are a few hooky facts, but I don't do DYK any longer. I did however quietly fix the things people raised queries about :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing DYK nomination

Hi, BlueMoonset, if a DYK nomination is being withdrawn, should the nominator mark it with a {{DYKno}} and wait for someone else to close it, or can they just close them as rejected themselves? There are other examples this morning. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I just saw those, but was too tired to formulate a note to WT:DYK—it's way past my bedtime.

Basically, the nominator should just say they want to withdraw the nomination. Since they can't review their own nomination, they should not use an icon like the X, and they shouldn't reject it out of hand: that isn't their decision to make, as I understand things. It's too bad that some of the 93 nominations made by Tentinator over the course of two weeks ended in this fashion. If you want to tackle this, be my guest. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've popped a note on Tentinator's talk page and will try to keep an eye on some of the others. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Toptop501 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Toptop501. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: DYK

Hey, everything answered at Template:Did you know nominations/Freedom and Unity Front just need someone to review the altblurb and done. Can yu do so?(Lihaas (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)).

Sorry, Lihaas, I can't. I've included it on the list of older nominations needing review, which does give it increased visibility, but the rest is up to roaming reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please double check my placement

Wedding of Nora Robinson and Alexander Kirkman Finlay is intended for Jan 26, 00:00 UTC / 11:00 Sydney time. I put it in Prep 4, which looks to me will move up into that Queue. But I think it's good to have more seasoned eyes check me on this.

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• It looks like it's in the right place, Maile. I've added a comment about the special occasion request to the end of the hook, so no one tries to move it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

In case you're not too busy, could you comment and give your support/oppose on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Natalia Kills discography/archive1? prism △ 14:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Prism, I'm sorry, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the Featured list criteria to judge, so it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Kanako Momota

Hi! Can the nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Kanako Momota be saved somehow? I am not sure what I should do. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would centralise discussion rather than asking all over. Matty.007 16:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Any DYK reviewers amongst your talk page stalkers?

Hi there, I've got Thunder (mascot) up for DYK, and given the content, I'm rather hoping we can get the hook blessed and in the queue prior to the Super Bowl (which is Feb. 2 for anyone outside the USA). I know that's a bit tight, so thought I'd post here to see if you or any of your friendly talk page stalkers wants what I hope is a relatively easy review. I'm sure I'll need to fix something or another, but I've had about 30 DYKs, so it isn't my first rodeo (pardon the pun) - but be nice to have a little time to get it reviewed! Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thx

thx BMS I'll look at it Victuallers (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Somewhere Down the Crazy River

I expanded Somewhere Down the Crazy River on the 24th, wrote the nomination on the 27th, and finally got around to listing it on T:TDYK today. The date of nomination, is that the day the nomination is written or the day the nomination is listed? I think I only have a five day time frame in which to nominate.--Launchballer 12:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you're okay as long as you created the nomination form on the 27th, three days after the start of expansion. That's the crucial step, even if you forgot to put it on the nominations page until today. I'm pretty sure that even if someone happens to notice, you'll get leniency. Next time, though, do jump right on it when the bot notifies you about forgetting to put the nomination on the nominations page! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Launchballer, I checked it out, and I'm afraid the article doesn't meet DYK requirements in its current form: it's way too short once the quote that was over 40% of the prose was blockquoted. You properly credited the source article for much of the material used in the new article (something that must be done in the edit summary when copying material from one article to another); however, material copied into the new article doesn't count toward DYK character count, and worse, must be expanded 5x. In a way, you're lucky that the blockquote is there now, since blockquotes don't count as prose for DYK, so they aren't subject to 5x expansion. (If they did, the article would need to be close to 4000 prose characters.) There was a sourcing issue related to just who produced the song (and therefore how it affects the wording of the hook); the name of the Juno Award it won appears to be incorrect based on the year it was awarded, and the source given does not have the information there, so it will need to be replaced with one that does. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pedro Cordero Martin

Done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Solomon Creek

ViperSnake151 is an experienced DYK reviewer and I am confident that he did in fact check the article against the main DYK criteria, but did not want to write a wall of text when he could just say that the article meets the criteria. (I am just assuming this is true; if it isn't could you say so, ViperSnake151?) --Jakob (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the case. I did check it. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Then please write the "wall of text" that Jakob refers to, ViperSnake151: if you want QPQ credit, spend the extra minute it takes to list what you did check. We have a varied and changing group of people creating prep sets, some new, and it's not possible for them to know who is experienced and who isn't when they go to promote a reviewed hook, much less how comprehensive the checks for a particular reviewer typically are. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps when someone says they have checked an article against the DYK criteria we should believe them? --Jakob (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• And yet you seem to be the one who has suddenly decided to be the one who polices them. Fine, you win. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jakob, you miss my point: experience at DYK shows that even with the best of faith, many people miss necessary parts of reviews, and it takes a lot of extra time to do a more stringent double-check before promoting an article when we don't know what was done. ViperSnake151, the lead on the new level of enforcement was actually taken by others, but I agree with it and also ask for it: if you want quid pro quo credit, take the time to note what facets the review comprised and how the nomination fared. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dancing With the Stars

I find it interesting that the section about the orchestra members hasn't been deleted, though a "citation needed" link is placed right there, however, the information about them being fired needs a source to not be deleted by a moderator.

This is brand new information as reported by the American Federation of Musicians in an email, and all I can give is someone repeating the email in a blog (which I will cite in the next update). This information is forthcoming, and SHOULD be known to the public as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.153.202 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Update on Template:Did you know nominations/YinzCam

Per your note at Template:Did you know nominations/YinzCam, I have completed my second QPQ.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

GrapedApe, thanks for reporting back. The review wasn't comprehensive enough, unfortunately, and you didn't correctly measure the expansion. (I can understand you thinking the BLP expansion might count, but it's very rare indeed that the 2x will be allowed, and various recent discussions have established that valid external links are enough to require the full 5x.) Fortunately, this is over 8x expanded in the five days prior to nomination, so it's new and large enough.

It is important to make sure all the facts in the hook (last goal of era, winning goal of Stanley Cup, name of team) are in the article and inline sourced (by the end of the sentence with the fact), not just one fact. I've just looked at the hook, and I think it's misleading: if Armstrong scored the final goal, and (as the article says) the score was 3–1, he didn't score the goal that clinched the game; that would be whoever scored the second goal for the Maple Leafs that put them ahead 2–1; Armstrong's goal would have been the icing on the cake and the final goal scored, but not the game-winning goal that is implied by the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki-kitten is here to express my thanks for your help with maintaining the DYK process. Your assistance is highly appreciated!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My DYK? Nomination

I have already reviewed another DYK? nomination as a QPQ for this DYK? nomination of mine -- Template:Did you know nominations/Henri Wald. Please respond to me on the page for this DYK? nomination of mine whenever you are able to. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tyler Ulis

Hi, Would you mind weighing in here on whether it is necessary for the hook fact to appear in every article in a multi-article hook? I'm surprised I can't find it on any of the rules pages. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah, when I started at DYK I made the same assumption as you, and it was Orlady, an old hand, who told me it wasn't. Indeed, I asked her to comment on the nomination template, because I didn't want to comment and misrepresent her, since I couldn't find what she'd originally said when setting me straight. I can see the point: that certain facts, which are germane to one article and therefore appropriate there, would be trivia or undue in another article in that hook. (There's no possible reason to include Walton in the All-American article.) The particular clause in the rules seems to be written with a single article in mind, and without considering what it would mean in multiple articles. If a hook fact is in both articles, however, I would think it needs to be supported by sourcing in both. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK query

I have just approved the DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Ethiopian Airlines ET702 hijacking. My query is about the article creator. "Stevage" has been named as the creator by the nominator but his name does not appear in the article history. At least a dozen people seem to have been involved in the writing of the article but none of them seems particularly worthy of receiving a DYK credit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, when I look at the article history, I see Stevage as having made the first five edits (including creating the stub in the first place). I don't know whether such a small stub is worthy of credit, but there's clearly some basis for it, so I left it alone. I did add a DYKmake for AHeneen to Prep 3, since it seems clear that all of the major additions to the article were that user's work. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Lonnie Warwick

I took care of what was needed in the review I think, can you please rereview it. Sorry for the delay but thanks for your patience. Secret ^account 17:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Glee ratings section

Why did you delete the ratings section I created for the Glee season 4 & 5 page? That section only told the season ratings and 18-49, so I don´t get what seems to be the problem? It was good sources, and I created the list in a neutral way, plus I worked really hard and long to make it. Why did you take it down? It doesn´t go against any rules and its not personal... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twotimer17 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Twotimer17, I explained this on the talk pages of both of those articles. Basically, you took up a couple of screens of space, displacing more important information further down the page, for a table that, as you note, only gives the 18-49 ratings/share info on the individual episodes, right after the individual episodes have just been listed: it's two tables in a row about the episodes, and repeats the viewership info. The ratings are far less important than sections such as Production and Cast, and I don't think they add much to the articles. I'm happy to discuss the issue on those talk pages—it really should be done there, where other interested people can join in. I think it's best for the article, though I do appreciate that it took a lot of time to put the tables together. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination to be looked at

Hi Bluemoonset, when you get a chance could you take a look at this nomination (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ocepeia) for copyvio status? I'm concerned about the description section in particular. Thanks!--Kevmin § 00:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Craigslist v. 3Taps

Thanks very much for your help! I've corrected the template. Colinpmacarthur (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK query

BlueMoonset, I wanted to ask you a random question that I felt you may have an answer for. Is there a way to find out how many DYK reviews a user has conducted? I've done many in addition to my QPQ reviews, and I didn't know if there was a bot or counter somewhere that tabulated this figure. I know it's random, but I felt given your knowledge of all things DYK, you were the right one to ask! -- Caponer (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Caponer, I'm happy to answer, though there's no way that I know of to find out how many DYK reviews a person has done. Not only aren't there any bots or counters keeping track, I have no idea how it might be automated, and I can't think of a way to distinguish between a full review, a partial review, or a simple comment except by manually reading what's been written. I wouldn't even know how to go about finding all of my reviews short of going back through my contributions list and manually checking my edits to DYK templates ... and it would take forever, so I'll never try. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I figured as such, but I just wanted to see if it were possible by a longshot! I think that I probably won't go about trying to find out either, as it would inquire a lot of sifting through years of DYK nominations! Thank you for your timely response, and I appreciate your continued contributions to DYK! -- Caponer (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mass surveillance in China‎

The last comment was about the infringement; I didn't see any evidence that the nomination was still active. If it is, feel free to revert me, but I would add a note asking for a new reviewer. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. The rule of thumb is that if the last icon is the "again" icon, then it's de facto active, even if it's taking a while to get reviewers. I've added a note clarifying that it is indeed active. It has been included in the "nominations needing reviewer" sections on WT:DYK for a while now. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Haven't quite learned all the icons - presumed that the red ones were bad. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, since you are still learning, here's a quick primer, remembering that reviewers don't always use icons correctly:

• : nomination is approved; it passes all the DYK requirements, and the hook sourcing has been checked, and matches what is in the hook and article
• : just like DYKtick, except that the hook sourcing is offline and cannot be checked, so it's Accepted in Good Faith. (This is sometimes also used if most of the article's sourcing is offline, even if the hook fact(s) are checkable.)
• : one or two minor things need to be done before the nomination can be approved, or a QPQ review is needed.
• : significant work is needed, or several things need to be done to the article and/or hook, but it's definitely feasible.
• : the article has extremely serious issues, possibly ones impossible to fix. This is not necessarily an automatic rejection, but can be anything from far too small, insufficiently expanded, submitted too late (but might be a candidate for IAR), copyvio/close paraphrasing, etc. Usually, a new article that's a bit too small shouldn't be given this icon but the next less serious one; articles that require huge amounts of expansion to qualify for 5x, however, should. I'll usually place the icon, and let someone else make the rejection decision (or at least wait a few days before rejecting myself), unless the nomination is being withdrawn by the nominator, in which case I do both in one go.
•  : this is used to attract the attention of a new reviewer, since the current reviewer has bowed out or hasn't returned, or has proposed an ALT hook (can't review your own hook!) and thus needs someone else to take a look.

Some important things to remember when you go to promote a hook (you may be doing these already, but it's worth mentioning):

• You should first double-check key things about the nomination—the person promoting a hook is the final defense against unsupported hooks and problematic articles (non-neutral, poorly written, etc.). Make sure the hook facts are in the article, given inline sourcing, and match the sources. If the review seems to have missed key DYK criteria, do a spot check of them. Skim the article to make sure it holds together. The QPQ might not have been done; it is required for all self-nominations except the first five, so if the reviewer doesn't mention the issue, it probably still needs doing. Some reviewers are still learning, or do less checking than they ought, and even experienced ones can miss things.
• The hook may have grammar issues or not read well; if so, fix it carefully when you put it in prep. If multiple hooks, be sure to choose only from those that have been specifically approved by the reviewer—not all unapproved hooks are struck, unfortunately.
• Please be sure to leave an edit summary on the template, such as "promoted to prep 1", so people know what you did. (Also use an edit summary when you reject a nomination.)

Hope this helps! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That is really helpful. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/Šupelka

Just want it you to know that I fixed the article's text on the DYK nomination, thank you for your considerationPhill24th (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Dropped by again... I fixed the hook on the DYK nomination, would appreciate your consideration...so, check it outPhill24th (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK reviewing question

So on Template:Did you know nominations/Irénée Berge, given that I proposed the ALT hook after reviewing, should I have used that red arrow icon instead of the question mark one? There are so many details in this process!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK question

Hello, I noticed you at DYK and have a question I was hoping you could help me with if it's not too much trouble. I'm kind of confused about some rules. I would like to nominate an article I've been working on (Tomnod) but am wondering if it fulfills the requirements for text. I copied/imported two (or three?) sentences from where it redirected but added a lot of information. I don't know if the rule is 5x expanded from the redirect itself or the redirect's page....so any help would be greatly appreciated. I know it has 1700 prose text.... Thank you --Turn➦ 15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Turn685, I'm glad you're working on new content. It looks like an interesting article. One thing you should be sure to do is always include an edit summary with your Wikipedia edits. For example, when you created the article to replace the redirect, you should have credited the source of the material (from an item in the article this was redirected to). You still should, even at this late date.

The DYK rule for articles is that they need to be at least 1500 prose characters and nominated within five days of it being new, or a 5x expansion being started. In your case, an additional rule comes into play: articles that reuse material from existing articles must do at least a 5x expansion on that pre-existing material. At the moment, Tomnod has 1705 prose characters. As best I can tell, you've basically reused what is in the source article on Tomnod, which came to 383 prose characters. A 5x expansion would require 1915 prose characters, so you have a little more text that you need to add (210 prose characters). However, nominating within five days of the start of your work on the article is crucial, even if you haven't gotten it quite to the necessary length by then. So be sure to nominate the article for DYK by March 20 to be absolutely safe. (You'll also want to fix the punctuation in the final History section sentence.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer BlueMooonset. I realized I accidentally made a mistake in not mentioning the sentences in the history so I had made a mention on the talk page to make up for it. Is there a way to credit it in the history or change the summary? Thank you for assessing the article and helping me out with it. I'm going to work on adding more to the article....Turn➦ 14:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 100 (Glee)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Why?

I just noticed that you interfered in the last GA review for Scotland in the early modern period just as you've interfered in the current GA review. You're not a contributor to the article. You don't seem to have a history of editing articles about Scotland. I don't see any evidence of animus between you and SabreBD. Why did you become involved? I'm really curious as I just can't wrap my head around it. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that you consider my intervention in the GA1 as interference: as I say in my comment there, I noticed that the review was still going on for nearly three months, and appeared to be stalled. Like Wizardman, I sometimes check the GA Report page, fix any malformed nominations listed, and see whether some of the older reviews are stalled. This generally happens because either nominator or reviewer hasn't noticed it's their turn to respond—in which case a quick note in the review or the relevant talk page is enough to get things moving again—or one or both aren't active at Wikipedia any longer, or any number of other issues. This was one of dozens of GANs I've worked to get moving again in the past year and more.

Wizardman was variously ready to fail or approve the article out of hand. I felt it was important to point out that only the first portion of the article had been reviewed, and therefore shouldn't be approved before the other 90% had been checked; I also looked at the specific comments made so far by the reviewer, checked the sections in question, and gave my opinion on what seemed to be needed, since SabreBD hadn't yet addressed this part of the review. I also gave him good advice about asking for a new reviewer (and that it wouldn't affect the nomination's place in line); Wizardman subsequently put the nomination back in the reviewing pool. The only reason I showed up again was because I saw it in my watchlist, and I thought the still-outstanding issues I had commented on in the original review should be addressed.

BTW, thanks for adjusting that phrase about d'Aubigny and James VI. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ben Maidment DYK

I have responded to your concerns on the Ben Maidment DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this, The C of E. I've proposed an ALT3 to deal with lingering hook issues, so someone else will need to continue the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN bot

Hi BlueMoonset, as the GAN bot still seems to be on vacation, should new GA nominations be added manually (I guess that must be possible?) or just continue to wait for the bot to wake up? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The last time this happened—when the previous bot was deactivated without warning—new nominations were added by hand (with, unfortunately, occasional formatting issues), and also removed by hand. Not all of the changes are seen or done, unfortunately, nor the reviews noted (or transcluded on nominated talk pages). Things won't be fully back in shape until the bot returns, and I doubt it's worth killing yourself to try to fix everything now. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It's only been a couple of days since I nominated Inchdrewer Castle - or rather tried to! - so I'll leave it a while longer to see if the bot returns to duty as it would be guaranteed I would mess up the formatting. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Legobot came back less than five hours after you posted that, so all should be well. If the article still isn't showing up, then something else is wrong... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the bot appears refreshed from their holiday and is diligently working correctly again! I should have curbed my impatience for just a little longer. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

RFA?

You are clearly the most active participant in keeping both DYK and GAN organized and you could use the tools on those fields, preparing DYKs, deleting old abandoned GANs, fixing main page errors and so forth. Are you interested in a request for adminship? Thanks Secret ^account 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Secret, many thanks for offering, but I have no interest in the mop. (You're not the first to offer, and I'm only reiterating what I said then.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I told him :P → Call me Hahc21 06:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Singapore legal GANs

Reviewing sixteen long, technical articles is a mammoth task for anybody. I suggest that the set of Singapore legal GANs be overseen by two reviewers. Having two reviewers speeds up the process and there are many situations where a second reviewer would be useful. For example, if the professor and one reviewer disagree on an issue, the other reviewer can offer a third opinion. ChrisGualtieri agrees with this idea and since you posted on his talk page, would you be willing and able to be the second reviewer?

--Hildanknight (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hildanknight, I'm neither willing nor able to take on that huge task. I've just replied at more length on ChrisGualtieri's talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_1844/GA1

I am sorry, I was doing a few GAs at the time, and dropped one. I'll get to it tomorrow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of First Nations in Alberta

Sorry I just brought me first child home from the hospital five days ago, and have had other things on the go. I'll need a little more time. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 15:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Top class energy food, to keep you going and in good humour at DYK. Your efforts are very much appreciated. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, hamiltonstone. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

My last two posts at WT:DYK

The Paul Hansen issue is kind of minor. But do you think you could look at that Moby Dick issues? I don't know the sourcing requirements for an article on fictional characters, but it seems to me a "Biography" section is not a book plot, so it should be sourced. Besides which, I keep reading that article and don't see any tie to the hook. What is it I'm not seeing? — Maile (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Maile, I was looking at them, but it appears Orlady got to them sooner (or worked more quickly) and posted first. I didn't know that about sources not being necessary for fictional biographies; on my few television character bios, the details have been sourced. As for Hansen, as you'll notice, I'm not convinced that he was a copper engraver, though he clearly did work in copper as an artisan of some sort. (I think the hook works better without the copper engraving, as the direct opposition of opera singer and silent film star works so well. But maybe others disagree... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your posts on the talk page. Stuff happens. No matter how much we think we check everything, stuff slips through. The more eyes the better, I think. Thanks for looking at this.— Maile (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Peanuts (film)

Hey BlueMoonset! I've finished addressing the concerns about WP:CRYSTAL you brought up in the DYK nom. Could you please restore the green tick? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Special Barnstar
		BlueMoonset, I hereby award you The Special Barnstar for your many "special" contributions to the DYK project's nomination page! Your efforts in ensuring the quality of DYK articles and hooks have not gone unnoticed. I also commend you for always bringing attention to those nominations that linger on the vine. I thoroughly appreciate your integral role in the DYK nomination process, and I cannot thank you enough for all the extraordinary things you do for Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Caponer. Much appreciated! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK stuff

Hey!

I've been lurking on DYK for a few weeks or so, and I was noticing that the prep areas AND queue were completely empty for a large portion of it, and the queue is still reading as an admin backlog constantly. I'm not trying to hog anything, but I feel there's a deep need right now for someone to fill them up, to allow people to engage in the more productive work of actually reviewing new nominations, which is not my strongest suit. I hope there's no animosity on that regard, but I do feel that what I'm doing is necessary, but only at the moment. It's not something I intend to do indefinitely, so I hope that's understood.

I'm also noticing that the entries that are there are getting bogged down like nobody's business. It's been suggested to me that the quality and number of submissions has been going a bit downhill recently and that's really putting a damper on the DYK "teams" ability to do what they love.

So! I was thinking, maybe we could set something up to go through new articles and invite the people who wrote them (rather than 'ourselves') to DYK, after checking it out ourselves to see if it's up to scratch? That way more people get into the DYK community and even better work gets done!

Anyway, that was my brainstorm, and I'm not very good at busy talk pages, so I thought I would come to you, as you are so active/experienced in this. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, just so I get this right in my head, why was Salisbury moved out of the picture? Can I move it to a different picture slot? The edit summary was confusing. Sorry :( Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S. I started a template here (on the bottom) - but it's really hard work so I wanted your feedback before I kept plugging away. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Panyd, I'll try to answer everything. It's late, so if I miss a point, please let me know!

I'll take the Salisbury question first. I'm usually very loath to switch out lead hooks that someone else has chosen. In this case, there was a hook from the Special Occasion section at the bottom of the T:TDYK nominations page, of already approved hooks that are being saved for a particular day. For those hooks, we aim to put them in a prep set that will ultimately run during daytime hours for the country in which the article is related to. In this case, there was a hook there that needed to be promoted, and the set it belonged in was the one you had already started, with Salisbury in the lead.

What I did was take a look at the two hooks—the one we'd been saving, and the Salisbury one you'd promoted—and used my judgment as to which had the more interesting image. Another criterion to consider is the length and depth of the article. In my opinion, the Bremen hook had both a better image, and it's also has about 25% more prose. (Some people who assemble sets prefer only to give the meatier articles the lead slot; I tend to avoid the short articles for that position unless the image is absolutely spectacular.) If you feel very strongly that Salisbury deserves a lead slot, you can move it, but try not to select lead hooks so others only get to fill non-leads.

It's interesting that you say that reviewing is not your strong point so you'd rather fill prep sets, yet the person filling prep sets is the last check point for DYK. When you promote a hook, you're saying that you've taken a look at it and its article and confirmed that the hook is valid: neutral, accurate, the facts are in the article and properly sourced there. You've also done a spot-check to confirm that the article meets the standards for newness, length, expansion, and so on. Since there are always reviewers who miss things, it's important to backstop these checks. I often have to supersede a tick with an icon that requires fixes to the article or a new hook. (As I was working on this, this very thing happened with Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St Mary the Virgin, Fawsley.)

That said, filling prep sets requires a balance of hooks: similar ones need to be separated (bios, countries), and you don't want to have too many arts or sports or buildings or countries in a set. This becomes harder the fewer approved hooks there are; sometimes it's better to wait for a few new hooks to be approved to give the variety that makes for a better set.

I don't think the number of submissions that we're getting is significantly lower, if lower at all; we're up around 200 at the moment, which is a good number, and will grow when we give an entire day to April Fools hooks and don't use any of our approved hooks at all. What has slowed down is the rate of reviewing—we're getting a lot of third-party nominations, which don't require quid pro quo reviews, so we're coming up short in approved nominations.

And I need to apologize, because I'm out of gas. I'm trying to figure out how your proposal to search for additional DYK articles differs significantly from the usual practice of a nominator going out and nominating articles by authors who haven't been involved in DYK, once they've vetted them to be sure they qualify. This happens quite often, and sometimes people who have been nominated become interested in DYK and submit later articles on their own. I'll try to get back to this in the morning. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think what Panyd is saying is that we should notify editors who create new articles of the right size that their article is eligible for DYK, following us checking it. I think the aim is to get new editors into DYK? Thanks, Matty.007 11:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

What they said ^^^ - also, there's a difference between reviewing an in-depth discussion regarding a hook, taking that on board, and then double-checking and putting it up - and partaking in the discussion and putting in an inordinate amount of time that I don't have. I'm not saying I don't check them, I'm saying I'm better at reviewing on that level, rather than at the lower levels. Also, I know how to balance a prep area, I was asking a minor question, I didn't need three paragraphs of in-depth discussion, just I had one on the line and didn't think that was interesting enough would've been fine.

I'm just trying to offer an olive branch. I'll go ask someone else instead. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)