- 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) 00:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Invalid status "yes" - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again"
- @IndianBio: I've fixed the sourcing issue now so should be ok. Kosack (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Kosack, the hook is now good to be promoted. —IB [ Poke ] 13:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Kosack: I think that the hook has too much information to be effectively hooky. You are hinting at an interesting question – why would a player come on as a substitute for the opposite team? – and that would be a reason to click the link and read the article. Then, however, you give the answer – that it was a friendly and their goalkeeper was injured. I suggest a hook like:
- (ALT1) ... that in 2010, footballer Neil Alexander came on as a substitute for Queen of the South against his own team, the Rangers?
- What do you think? EdChem (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note, this comment does not detract in any way from the quality of the review by IndianBio or its suitability for QPQ credit. EdChem (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @EdChem: Yeah I agree with your point. I was unsure whether to include the last part about the injury myself but stuck with it in the end. If you think it's more suitable, I'm happy to go with the alt. Kosack (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @IndianBio: what's your view on the hook?
@Kosack: thanks for your response. I can't give a tick approving ALT1 as I am the one who suggested it. IndianBio can approve it, or could approve both and leave the choice to the promoter, or raise an objection. At this point, it's his call. EdChem (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @EdChem: hi I think its much more crisp than the hook originally present so I would say good to go with the ALT. —IB [ Poke ] 07:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @IndianBio:If you are satisfied that it is preferably and that it is supported by the article, then I suggest ticking it with a note that ALT1 is preferred - if it were me, I'd say something like "{{subst:DYKtick}} ALT1 supported by same refs as AlT0, ALT1 preferred, ready for promotion." Others would go with something as short as "ALT1 GTG." I know it is silly but the tick is needed both to satisfy formality and to ensure it's in the lists promoters look at when building hooks. :) EdChem (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Haha thanks a lot for guiding me @EdChem: and as discussed I would say that
ALT1 is GTG to be promoted. —IB [ Poke ] 08:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
