- 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 Jack Frost (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Ronteza
Created by Horsegeek (talk). Self-nominated at 02:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC).
- Drive-by comment, but the first two hooks seem rather niche and may not attract general readers. ALT2 however may have more promise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:20, 19 September 2022 (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
|
|
|
Overall: 
This article is long enough (~3,000 chars) and was new enough when nominated. The tone is appropriately neutral, not e.g. excessively aggrandizing the horse, and I don't see any signs of plagiarism from online sources. The QPQ looks good. There are spots where no citation was given for content I haven't been able to find in the sources; I'm also not sure how a non-equestrian can know that "Faronek was 50% Crabbet" by being shown his pedigree. Just as a piece of advice on the article, it never once says that the horse was an American and lived and competed in California; that seems pretty relevant. Oh, and "leighweight" seems like it's probably a typo, but I thought I'd ask, just in case it's an equestrian term I'm not familiar with. All three proposed hooks are supported by citations in the text; I agree that ALT2 is the most interesting. With some citation work, it should be good for DYK. Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Horsegeek: Just making sure you see this, in case the earlier comment means that the bot didn't notify you of the review. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Horsegeek: One more try; looking forward to hearing from you on this. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply! I've been occupied with college; it may take me a while before I can start working on this again, but I'm good with finding more adequate sourcing so we can move forward with the DYK. Horsegeek(talk) 21:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- No sweat! Looking forward to it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Near the standard but not reaching it. It needs work before it can run at DYK. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- We'll need to hear from Horsegeek soon because non-responsiveness could mean that the nomination will have to be marked for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies! The worst part of the semester has just come to a slow and I got a chance to hop on and add a few more references and did a bit of rewording along with added some relevant information. Bryanrutherford0 let me know if it anything still needs to be done! Horsegeek(talk) 22:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks like that's covered my concerns. It meets the DYK standard now. Well done! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is long enough (~3,000 chars) and was new enough when nominated. The tone is appropriately neutral, not e.g. excessively aggrandizing the horse, and I don't see any signs of plagiarism from online sources. The QPQ looks good.