Template:Did you know nominations/Sentinel program
- 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 sstflyer 09:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sentinel program
edit- ... that public opinion turned so sharply against the Sentinel ABM system during the 1968 presidential elections, that incoming President Richard Nixon was forced to cancel the program?
- Reviewed: National Liberation Council
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 23:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC).
- The article is newly written.
- The article has not previously featured on the Main Page.
- The article is long enough, by far.
- Citations are sufficient and drawn from reliable published sources.
- No disputes surround the article.
- I see nothing that might be construed as a BLP violation.
- I can find no particular issues with plagiarism. I assume the wording is original.
- I see no neutrality issues, either. This is a straightforward account.
- The article is not up for AfD.
- I assume good faith as to the hook. Great work! - Biruitorul Talk 19:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The QPQ is hardly comprehensive. Please provide another QPQ that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- The review in question was used in production, and now you're retroactively saying it's not good enough for a QPQ?! Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Most of the review was done by User:Rosekelleher. Obviously, the prep builder had to recheck all the criteria before promoting it. Yoninah (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, obviously. Just as obvious as the fact that you're just making up new "rules". Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I started to review that nomination but couldn't verify the sources online, so didn't approve it. Not sure why the work I did do "obviously" had to be rechecked. Because I questioned how interesting it was? "Hook is interesting" is one of the review criteria. It's subjective. --Rosekelleher (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Rosekelleher: there is accountability at each step of the nomination process. The initial reviewer, the prep builder, and the administrator who promotes the hook to a queue all have to make sure the hook meets the DYK criteria. At any step, the hook can be pulled and returned to the nominations page for further work. Your review was fine; the rechecking is just part of the process. Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Rosekelleher: regarding your review itself, you could have added the gray tick of approval for offline sources. Not everyone uses online sources. Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, that last item, which makes this entire thread somewhat odd. Are we hear to talk about promoting great new content, or arguing over ancient history? Yoninah, if you really think this "isn't good enough", feel free to pick from any of the other hundreds of reviews I've made. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am not making up rules. Reviews like yours require prep builders to recheck all the criteria themselves. Please list another of your many QPQs, and let's move on. Yoninah (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm signing this nomination off as I agree with Maury Markowitz that the objection to the earlier QPQ is outside the scope of the DYK rules. The QPQ rule states simply that "For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)—this is called quid pro quo or QPQ." It includes no criteria on how long or how comprehensive the review should be. I have just added a line to note that reviewers are required to cover the criteria in their QPQs (see [1]). This clearly can't be retrospectively applied, however. I would however advise Maury to cover all the criteria in future as the QPQ review that you listed should have more comprehensive, as Yoninah rightly says. Prioryman (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am not making up rules. Reviews like yours require prep builders to recheck all the criteria themselves. Please list another of your many QPQs, and let's move on. Yoninah (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I started to review that nomination but couldn't verify the sources online, so didn't approve it. Not sure why the work I did do "obviously" had to be rechecked. Because I questioned how interesting it was? "Hook is interesting" is one of the review criteria. It's subjective. --Rosekelleher (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, obviously. Just as obvious as the fact that you're just making up new "rules". Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Most of the review was done by User:Rosekelleher. Obviously, the prep builder had to recheck all the criteria before promoting it. Yoninah (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- The review in question was used in production, and now you're retroactively saying it's not good enough for a QPQ?! Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
