Template:Did you know nominations/Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence
edit- ... that television showings and online streaming of the documentary Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence were stopped after a blogger discredited its key photograph ? Source: [1], [2], [3]. Yeah, "discredits" is a strong word, but it's exactly what sources use. For the "removed from circulation" part, [4]. )
- Comment: If desired, can include some sort of kicker like "which took only thirty minutes of searching" at the end of the hook. I kept it short above but that's a spicy fact that could be included if the other hooks are too bland.
- QPQ: Anthrenus scrophulariae.
Created by SnowFire (talk). Self-nominated at 06:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC).
The first hook is good and not too long (158 characters and the proposed second hook is too long), article is clearly long enough and well cited (understandably, most sources are online resources given the object of the article), article is new and neutral is so far as the criticism reported is supported by the sources. I thus think that the article is good to go, however it appears that the nominator has already had 5 DYK article and so a QPQ is needed, that is the nominator must review a DYK candidate for this one to be promoted. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see any nominations that currently need review - willing to accept a rain check on this one? I'll edit in the review done at the later date when it happens. SnowFire (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- SnowFire Yes I had the same problem and my nomination was blocked because of lacking QPQ. Ultimately this is because Usernameunique has worked through all nominations, a remarquable feat. The only solution is for you to wait for a unreviewed candidate to appear, which should take no longer than a couple of days. Alternatively, you could offer your contribution on already reviewed candidates where more opinions are needed (look at the older nominations). Iry-Hor (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. SnowFire, some nominations that still need a review are Una R. Winter (has comments, but not a review), Anthrenus scrophulariae, and Cup of Solid Gold. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Iry-Hor: Done, see Anthrenus scrophulariae. SnowFire (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed! So your job here is done and so is mine.
- Thanks guys. SnowFire, some nominations that still need a review are Una R. Winter (has comments, but not a review), Anthrenus scrophulariae, and Cup of Solid Gold. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
