- 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 SL93 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
14th Place station
Created by John M Wolfson (talk). Self-nominated at 01:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC).
- Starting this review. Ktin (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
Article meets eligibility requirements - newness and length. No issues with sourcing and is neutral in tone. No copyvio issues found with Earwig. Assuming WP:AGF on some of the offline sources. Hook is sourced to a Chicago Tribune article accessible via a newspapers.com snippet. QPQ done. I have a question for the nominator -- does it appear that the incident seems to have undue weightage in the article? Will go by the nominator's read. Irrespective, I am marking nomination as approved. Ktin (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- It might be UNDUE in the current article, but I think it would be fine in a hypothetical "expanded to FA/GA status" article. In any event, I think it's fine. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Adding another symbol since it seems to be broken. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Please return to Template:Did you know nominations/Film Center Building to complete your QPQ by checking the alt hooks. A QPQ has also been provided by the nominator. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93: For future reference, do all proposed hooks of a QPQ have to be reviewed even if some are rejected prior to checking, for e.g. not being hooky enough, or if only one hook is seriously considered for promotion? (In any event, I have proceeded my QPQ along.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- John M Wolfson Any hooks that are a possibility in a reviewer's eyes need to be reviewed. Thanks for coming back to the nomination. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll be sure to be more explicit in what hooks I consider in the future. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Article meets eligibility requirements - newness and length. No issues with sourcing and is neutral in tone. No copyvio issues found with Earwig. Assuming WP:AGF on some of the offline sources. Hook is sourced to a Chicago Tribune article accessible via a newspapers.com snippet. QPQ done. I have a question for the nominator -- does it appear that the incident seems to have undue weightage in the article? Will go by the nominator's read. Irrespective, I am marking nomination as approved. Ktin (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
