Template:Did you know nominations/Serra Cross (Ventura, California)
- 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) 06:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Serra Cross (Ventura, California)
edit
Serra Cross in 2018
- ... that the Serra Cross (pictured) in Ventura, California, was sold in response to a threatened lawsuit challenging the use of public funds to maintain a religious symbol on public land? Source: The newspaper articles at notes 24-26 and 29 all report on the settlement which mandated the sale of the cross.
- Reviewed: pending
Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC).
- @Cbl62: My review is attached below. epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- I can't actually read the sources, but they seem to be reliable, so am accepting in good faith. - Interesting:
QPQ: 
- QPQ needed
Overall: 
Not strictly necessary but I think you should add references to "The first road was built in 1920." and "The park has remained closed for several months since the fire." epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: Can you respond to the above comment so that this nomination can proceed? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I left Cbl62 two messages on their talk page (the first was a month ago, the second was a little over a week ago), but have received no response. However, they have continued editing during this time. Should this nomination be considered abandoned, or should we wait a little longer? epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: It is disappointing that @Cbl62: has not responded seeing that this article is his creation and he nominated it himself. I have commented out the two statements you were concerned about, and I will donate an extra review I have done (Juliet Appiah) so I think you could approve the nomination now if you think fit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Sorry about that. Thank you, Epicgenius. When I have a moment, I will pass a QPQ back to you, if that works. Cbl62 (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: It is disappointing that @Cbl62: has not responded seeing that this article is his creation and he nominated it himself. I have commented out the two statements you were concerned about, and I will donate an extra review I have done (Juliet Appiah) so I think you could approve the nomination now if you think fit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I left Cbl62 two messages on their talk page (the first was a month ago, the second was a little over a week ago), but have received no response. However, they have continued editing during this time. Should this nomination be considered abandoned, or should we wait a little longer? epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: Can you respond to the above comment so that this nomination can proceed? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cbl62: QPQ needed for this nomination to proceed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)- @Cbl62: Ping. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cbl62 has been unable to respond to multiple requests for a QPQ. However, as Cwmhiraeth has donated a QPQ of theirs, the QPQ issue has been addressed. As there are no more outstanding issues with this nomination, this should now be good to go.
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
