Template:Did you know nominations/MTV: TRL Christmas

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) 06:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

MTV: TRL Christmas

(

)

... that certain copies of the Christmas compilation album MTV: TRL Christmas contained tickets for a free trip to be a part of the Total Request Live studio audience in New York City? Source: "That's right, kiddies, selected copies of "MTV TRL Christmas" come with a Willie Wonka-style golden ticket that grants the lucky winner a free trip to New York to join the studio audience at "Total Request Live." (in the following source: The New York Times

Reviewed: My Favorite Thing Is Monsters

5x expanded by Aoba47 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC).

Fascinating article. Meets 5x expansion and the reference checks out. Nomader (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomader, a DYK review needs to mention all of the criteria and whether it was met: newness, length, hook facts and their references (mentioned), neutrality, general sourcing, copyvio/close paraphrase checks, whether the QPQ review was adequate, etc. Please do a full-fledged review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: and thanks for the ping-- if it meets the criteria, in the past I've just put the tick and given a small statement that it obviously meets the criteria (as it does in this case) instead of going through and listing out every single part passing-- I've probably reviewed at least 50 of these and I'm well aware of the criteria required. I'll make sure to list everything out moving forward for my reviews so they don't need to be revisited like this. I've listed out below how it met the criteria in this case:

In the past seven days, the article was expanded 5x per the DYKcheck tool starting on 1/5.
The article has not been otherwise featured on the main page.
The article easily meets the prose requirements at 7746 characters.
The hook is clearly cited in the NYT article that is listed in the nomination (source here: [1]).
The article is very clearly well sourced, and a random check of citations checked out as well.
The article easily meets the WP:NPOV threshold.
The article clearly meets all notability guidelines.
The QPQ is more than adequate and was completed properly.

I think the only thing my original review was missing was the note on QPQ-- I am heartened to see that DYK is moving towards taking reviews more seriously and really making sure that Wikipedia's best foot is forward and I'll make sure to include these lists on all my future reviews. Nomader (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Nomader, and the list of things checked. The only thing you haven't mentioned is the is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism check, which is an important one. (If there had been an image, there would have needed to be an image check; the image in the article seems to have the appropriate non-free use justification.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Good catch and my bad! There was one flag from the copyvio detector but it's just because of the list of credits (the names and their positions are the same) so it's all good. Still approved. Nomader (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)