- 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 12:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
No QPQ review completed
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pastila
edit
- ... that pastila candies (pictured) were baked in the Russian stove?
Created by Ghirlandajo (talk). Self nominated at 05:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC).
Full review needed now that article is above minimum DYK length. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is new enough and also now long enough. The image is appropriately licensed and the pastila looks delicious. I have added Off-shell to the DYK credits as that editor seems to have made significant additions to the article. The problem with the nomination is that there is not an inline citation for the hook fact and in fact that particular paragraph has no references at all. Also, have you previously had five or more DYKs? If so, you need to do a QPQ review of another article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just confirming that Ghirlandajo will indeed have to do a QPQ (quid pro quo) review of another DYK nomination, having had far more than five prior DYK self-nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- An inline reference includes the hook fact. It is now included additionally near the hook message to make it clear.--Off-shell (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are referring to Ref8, but I see no mention of a Russian stove in the Kolomna Pastila Museum site. Also, as BlueMoonset mentions, Ghirlandajo as the nominator of this article will need to review some other DYK nomination and list here which one has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I have pinged Ghirlandajo's talk page with a final notice that the QPQ is needed. If we don't hear anything within a couple of days (or after the next edit, if it's later), then this will be closed, though I hope that isn't necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- As may be seen from my user page, I was the first wikipedian to receive a DYK medal and the 200 DYK medal and, in the words of the then arb YellowMonkey, used to be the "driving force of DYK" from 2005 on. After spending so much time and effort on DYK, I find the latest requirements to review still more DYK nominations both unfair and discouraging. If DYK does not care about its patriarchs, you'd better close the nom. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure which bothers me more: that I'm expected to go to your user page to get your bona fides (or know them outright), or that a DYK patriarch would care so little for the health of DYK today as to be unwilling to do a single review at a time when we need reviewers and have an enormous backlog of unreviewed nominations. If someone wants to donate one of their reviews to you to satisfy the quid pro quo requirement, that's fine, but QPQ has been in place for years, and everyone is subject to it. Everyone. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)