- 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) 06:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Qriously
edit- ... that Qriously was voted "worst name in ad-tech" in an Ad Age poll, beating Vungle, Nanigans, AdsWizz and Burt?
- Reviewed: nRosie Stephenson-Goodknight
Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 16:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC).
No issues found.
- ✓ This article is new and was created on 15:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 1726 characters
- ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
- ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
- ✗ There is possible close paraphrasing on this article with 38.7% confidence. (confirm)
- Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
- ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 115 characters
- ✗ This is Edwardx's 221st nomination. A QPQ review is required for this nomination.
Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Interesting article and wow this new review bot is interesting too. Hook is verified. The article has barelinks in references which should be fixed. Also, the close paraphrasing thing the bot points out is for the quotes used and that’s fine. However, the reference which is used for the hook also mentioned more info about how the name was selected and that would be meaningful to have in the article. I also find it odd that the first sentence itself is a quote. We can put that in our own words. The intro line that tells you what the subject is should not be a quote; at least in this case. QPQ is awaited. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging nominator @Edwardx:. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Dharmadhyaksha. QPQ review done. And I have rephrased what was the first quote. Edwardx (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging nominator @Edwardx:. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Good to go. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
