Talk:Carlos Bandeirense Mirandópolis hoax

Did you know nomination

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 Hey man im josh talk 14:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Wikipedia hoax Carlos Bandeirense Mirandópolis was cited in a judicial decision by the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice?

• Source: Passarinho, Nathalia (2016-02-23). "Perfil falso na Wikipédia é citado em decisão judicial e trabalho acadêmico". G1. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Beale Davis (1/2)
• Comment: There's likely many options for interesting hooks, so ALT suggestions are welcome.

Created by Skyshifter (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

Skyshiftertalk 19:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Waiting for the QPQ. Passing the nom. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer done! Skyshiftertalk 01:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carlos Bandeirense Mirandópolis hoax/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TappyTurtle (talk · contribs) 20:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Olá! I'll be reviewing this article soon.

@TappyTurtle: just a reminder in case you're still interested in reviewing! Skyshiftertalk 10:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear, concise, and grammatically correct
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Using quotes around "theory" can be considered use of scare-quotes, which creates unnecessary ambiguity – considering it was already stated in the previous sentence that the theory doesn't exist, this can be removed anyway; among that, the article contains more expressions of doubt such as "allegedly", "supposedly", and "purportedly"; it makes sense considering the topic of the article, but if possible these should be reduced, for the sake of neutrality
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reflist is present
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Checked all sources, everything looks good
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found; citations are used properly
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvios or plagiarism found
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Short article, but touches the main points of this topic
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Writing is focused
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Written fairly (see 1b) neutrally, including the "revelation" section
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding disputes here
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only present image is properly tagged with a free license
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The only one image here (which is of the original article) is useful and captioned correctly
	7. Overall assessment.	Looks pretty good so far – sorry about the terrible delay! I will put this review on a 1 week hold to let you address these issues. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 04:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC) @Skyshifter: Looks all good now, passing; well done! TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@TappyTurtle: 1b fixed, I think. Skyshiftertalk 20:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@TappyTurtle: reminder! Skyshiftertalk 13:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.