Template:Did you know nominations/I Gave You Power

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) 20:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I Gave You Power

(

)

... that Nas' "I Gave You Power" is written from the perspective of a gun?

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 23:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

Length and date are fine. Referencing is good. However, the article uses an inappropriately informal style including slang that will be unclear to many readers. It also uses long strings of pronouns which make it unclear who "he" is at points. These issues will need fixed before the article can be featured. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, a QPQ is required. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I like to leave my QPQs until last. I am not sure how 'nicked' classifies as slang - it's in the dictionary - but I've taken it out nonetheless and tweaked a few bits so it is clearer.--Laun chba ller 23:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point, there's no point in doing further review of this nomination absent the required QPQ, which has still not been supplied after more than another week, and over three since the initial nomination. Time is rapidly running out for it to be supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. (There's two there.)--Laun chba ller 07:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The tone of the article was informal in several places - the slang was just an example of that. (And for the record, almost all slang words are "in the dictionary".) The article seems OK to me now, but since I made a number of edits to it, I will request a third party do the review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, the article has had a bit of a tidy up now and appears OK, given the QPQ has been done. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)