Template:Did you know nominations/Colby Carthel

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 Jolly Ω Janner 07:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Colby Carthel

edit
Colby Carthel in 2014

Created by Fkbowen (talk). Self-nominated at 22:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC).

  • This article is new enough (created last Wednesday, January 27), long enough (over 3,200 characters), and mostly within general Wikipedia policy; it is neutral and free of any apparent copyright issues. However, there are a couple of sections that are completely uncited ("Early life" and "Playing career") that need to be referenced before I can pass this DYK nomination.
The main hook is short enough, neutral, definitely interesting, and accurately cited in the article; I think it is the clear choice for the hook (neither of the alternates are as interesting, and both of them have citations issues).
QPQ does not apply in this case, and the image looks great: it is freely licensed under the CC BY-2.0, is used in the article, and shows up well at small size (note, however, that it is no longer available under a free license on Flickr, but because it was at the time it was ported to Wikimedia Commons and the fact that Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, this is not an issue).
As it stands, the only apparent issue with this article regarding DYK standards is the need for more citations, especially in the two completely uncited sections ("Early life" and "Playing career"). As soon as this is addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this nomination. Michael Barera (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The necessary edits have been made and the two previously unreferenced sections are now adequately cited. This resolves my only concern with the article, and it is now good to go with the main hook. Michael Barera (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)