Template:Did you know nominations/Pattycake (gorilla)

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Pattycake (gorilla)

(

)

... that Pattycake (pictured) was one of 338 captive gorillas in North American zoos when she died in 2013?

Improved to Good Article status by Viriditas (talk), FunkMonk (talk). Nominated by Viriditas (talk) at 20:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

Hook length and interest are good. Length and cites are fine as well. But what about QPQ? The tool in the box is down so I can't verify it. Also the cite for the hook needs to immediately follow the hook; this one's the sentence afterwards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm at work, and I haven't had any free time to do a QPQ just yet. It will have to wait until later tonight. You responded an hour after my nomination. Keep in mind, not everyone is in the same time zone or is on Wikipedia all the time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No rush, but I'm used to seeing a note about an imminent review if it hasn't been done by the time of the nom. Something to think about if this situation comes up again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DYK#gen5 says "You may add your nomination before you undertake a review, but before it is approved, please review another editor's nomination and indicate at your nomination which you have reviewed, and provide a link to the reviewed nomination." Nothing about a note. Also, when filling out the review parameter in the initial nomination template, Template:NewDYKnomination says "If you reviewed another article before listing this DYK nomination, put it here. Otherwise leave this line alone; it will blank when saved." Which is exactly what I did. Again, nothing about a note. The template also specifies that except for the article, hook, and author parameters (which are required), the rest are optional. Finally, the QPQ eligibility criterion 5 at WP:WIADYK (which is what we are discussing) says "You may add your nomination before you undertake a review, but before it is approved, please review another editor's nomination and indicate at your nomination which you have reviewed, and provide a link to the reviewed nomination." It does not say to perform the QPQ before a self-nom, or even to mention it in the nom. Also, asking "what about the QPQ" an hour after I made the nomination appears unreasonable. If you had simply said, "QPQ not done yet" or "waiting for QPQ", the tone would be far more reasonable. Of course, if you had reviewed this hook several days after the nom, then I can certainly understand the "what about the QPQ" comment. But one hour after? Judging by your response, perhaps this process needs to be further spelled out in the guidelines so that editors like myself don't feel discouraged. And in any case, I already said I was volunteering to work on two QPQ's yesterday.[1] Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

To quote Gunnery Sgt. Hartman from Full Metal Jacket: "Lighten up, Francis". It's just not that serious. And I have no way of noting what you may have said on the subject anywhere else but here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Internet is serious business. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Also the cite for the hook needs to immediately follow the hook; this one's the sentence afterwards.

Thanks for catching that. It's now fixed.[2] Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

But what about QPQ?

Art Sherman QPQ done. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)