Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Laucke

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) 05:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Laucke

(

)

Michael Laucke in 1963

... that Michael Laucke's (pictured) snooker winnings allowed him to finance 110 trips from Montreal to New York City to study the classical guitar with Franco-Spaniard Rolando Valdès–Blain?

ALT1: ... that flamenco and classical guitarist Michael Laucke (pictured) was the Montreal champion at age 10 in a city-wide yo-yo competition and went on to become the North American snooker champion at age 16?

ALT2: ... that in the early 1970s, guitarists Michael Laucke (pictured) and Paco de Lucía (pictured) performed privately together for New York's jet set which included Andy Warhol, Calvin Klein and countess Elsa Peretti?

Improved to Good Article status by Natalie.Desautels (talk), Checkingfax (talk), and Corinne (talk). Nominated by Checkingfax (talk) at 03:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC).

Article was promoted to GA status on April 9. Checkingfax has more than five DYK credits, so a review is required. Images are free and used in the article. The reference for the first hook gives a 404 error, but this one verifies it. For ALT1, the source states the yo-yo competition was in 1957, making Laucke 10 years old (also this [1]), and if the snooker championship was in December 1963, he would have been 16, nearly 17 (looks like some sources round up his age). For ALT2, the source doesn't mention Andy Warhol and Calvin Klein, unless I'm missing something. I think the ages should be changed and another reference added for ALT2. Hooks are interesting, and I like the original one the best. The other two are just under 200 characters. Random86 (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Random86. If you read the rules carefully it actually says nominations, not credits; noms are the criteria in the rules. This is my 3rd nom.

See the second sentence here.

However, people who have made fewer than five DYK nominations, are not required to do another review.

I have changed the ages per your suggestion, and I updated the year in the photo caption to 1963 (i.e.- 1947+16=1963). I will look for another ref, but if you are happy with the original hook I will just remove the other two. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Random86. References now tidied up for all three hooks. Take your pick and strike the other two. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I see it now; the editing notice here just says credits. The hooks are all interesting and I don't think you have to remove any. I just fixed a citation error, and all three hooks are now good to go. Random86 (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: there is no distinction between nominating your own or someone else's article; the rule (5. Review requirement (QPQ) clearly states that if you have more than 5 DYK credits, you need to submit a QPQ. You have 8 credits to date. Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Yoninah. The distinction is clearly made in the second sentence here.

However, people who have made fewer than five DYK nominations, are not required to do another review.

The reviewer has already vetted this. This is my third nomination, period. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Restoring the tick per Random86; no QPQ is required. Yoninah, of the eight DYK credits that appear on Checkingfax's talk page, only two were for articles nominated by Checkingfax; this is indeed the third such nomination. The rest are nominations by other users, including Casliber and BabbaQ, the latter of whom tends to hand out DYKmake credits with a very generous hand; none of these should be included in the total. By my count, Checkingfax has two more article nominations without a QPQ before such reviews must commence. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)