Template:Did you know nominations/Classmates (manga)
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Classmates (manga)
- ... that the film adaptation of the yaoi manga series Classmates grossed ¥201 million? Source: Anime News Network
- ALT1:... that the film adaptation of the yaoi manga series Classmates grossed ¥201 million domestically and USD$1.38 million worldwide? Source: Anime News Network, Box Office Mojo
- ALT2:... that Asumiko Nakamura, author of the manga series Classmates, sought to create a story about a "slow, serious love" that was "cliché" and "almost hackneyed"? Source: Classmates afterword, sourced in article
- Reviewed: New Hampshire midnight voting
Created by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Nearly all prose, that is not about plot, has a reliable source, except " The series has been collected as six tankōbon volumes published by Akane Shinsha." - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article was moved into article space on 19 February after work began in userspace on content beginning on 6 February. Prose exceeds 1.5k characters. Appears to be 99% good to go! ALT2 is my preferred hook. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- @RightCowLeftCoast: Source added. The six books are also individually listed and cited in the table in the same section. Morgan695 (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Morgan695:
With the addition of that reference, things look good to go.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- @RightCowLeftCoast: It's your prerogative to redirect the review, but as you're not suggesting a new hook that would require another editor to review, you're free to just tick the nomination if my edit to the article satisfied your concerns. Morgan695 (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Morgan695: I believe this DYKN will pass with flying colors, including any hook chosen (even though I have stated a preference in my review), and that the one minor issue, has been resolved.
- If I may pass it outright, I am more than happy to. But my understanding is that it requires a new reviewer. I am fallible and maybe wrong on that part, but I am operating to how I understand reviews go, that if one review finds an issue, that it is described, the nominator(s) notified, and it is checked if later modifications resolve any issued described, and once resolved, another party checks the article again before it is passed outright.
- @BlueMoonset and Gatoclass: guidance?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- RightCowLeftCoast, thanks for asking. A reviewer is only expected to recuse if they have proposed a hook that needs reviewing (usually when none of the hook are suitable), or if they have made sufficient edits to the article during the review process that they have made a meaningful contribution to it. If they point out issues with the nomination that are then corrected, however, they are encouraged to continue the review, checking the fixes through however many iterations, including giving the final tick when the nomination meets all the criteria. So please do continue your review, and if you think this nomination passes, then by all means pass it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I stand corrected.
Pass it I shall, no issues remain! I prefer hook ALT2 be utilized.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I stand corrected.
- RightCowLeftCoast, thanks for asking. A reviewer is only expected to recuse if they have proposed a hook that needs reviewing (usually when none of the hook are suitable), or if they have made sufficient edits to the article during the review process that they have made a meaningful contribution to it. If they point out issues with the nomination that are then corrected, however, they are encouraged to continue the review, checking the fixes through however many iterations, including giving the final tick when the nomination meets all the criteria. So please do continue your review, and if you think this nomination passes, then by all means pass it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- @RightCowLeftCoast: It's your prerogative to redirect the review, but as you're not suggesting a new hook that would require another editor to review, you're free to just tick the nomination if my edit to the article satisfied your concerns. Morgan695 (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Morgan695:
