- 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 SL93 (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Steve Cherry
- ... that professional footballer Steve Cherry injured himself trying to prevent his pet kitten escaping the house? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
- ALT1:... that a two-year old Steve Cherry woke his family with his teething cries during a house fire? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
- ALT2:... that Steve Cherry prevented an unconscious John Fashanu from choking on his tongue? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
- ALT3:... that professional footballer Steve Cherry was described as a "goalkeeper, wit, raconteur and failed anorexic" after struggling to keep his weight down? Source: Cherry, Steve; Nicholas, Jonathan (2018). Cherry Picking. The Book Guild Ltd. ISBN 978-1912575-831.
- ALT4:... that Kidsgrove Athletic F.C. became the first football club in England to have father and son goalkeepers when they signed Steve Cherry in 2003? Source: Kidsgrove Athletic are claiming to be the first senior club in the country to have father and son goalkeepers on their books at the same time. They recently signed experienced Steve Cherry, 43, as cover for the injured Phil McGing and the former Derby County, Walsall, Plymouth Argyle and Notts County goalkeeper has been joined by his 18-year-old son, Jon.
- Reviewed: Chang Yun Chung
Improved to Good Article status by EchetusXe (talk). Self-nominated at 11:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC).
This article is a newly promoted GA and meets the newness and length criteria. I prefer ALT2 and ALT3; the hook facts for these are cited inline and either hook could be used, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
While the tags have been removed, the issue with ALT2, the previously promoted hook, appears to remain per the discussion at WT:DYK. It should either be struck or a new variant proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've replaced the tags. This needs discussion. ALT3 has the same issues as the other ALTs -- they're all sourced to his autobiography. —valereee (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- approving ALT4 —valereee (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
-
- @Valereee: How can you have given this nomination the green tick of approval when you had made it ineligible by adding the banner tags? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The article's GA status is now under reassessment. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)- Okay thank you. Once it's been reassessed we can go ahead with the DYK then. EchetusXe 15:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The GA reassessment should have no baring on DYK. GA review is not AFD or a high stakes problem. It's optional. The only thing holding up this review is the tags. That may get resolved before the GA reassessment concludes. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- I thought that since the only reason the article qualifies for DYK is it being a Good Article, the article wouldn't qualify if it was demoted. Maybe BlueMoonset knows as someone with great DYK experience. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought it was new or expanded nom. Never mind.4meter4 (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- This seems to be settled, but since I've been pinged, it is true that DYK nominations where a new GA is being reassessed are put on hold until the reassessment closes, much like nominations are put on hold while the nominated article is being considered at Articles for Deletion. (Some new GAs have been reassessed and delisted, and the DYK's were rejected because they no longer qualified.) At the moment, this is waiting on both the reassessment and the tags. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought it was new or expanded nom. Never mind.4meter4 (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I thought that since the only reason the article qualifies for DYK is it being a Good Article, the article wouldn't qualify if it was demoted. Maybe BlueMoonset knows as someone with great DYK experience. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The GA reassessment should have no baring on DYK. GA review is not AFD or a high stakes problem. It's optional. The only thing holding up this review is the tags. That may get resolved before the GA reassessment concludes. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've pulled the article from prep per a WT:DYK talk discussion. It's probably best to wait out the reassessment before making a final action on this nom. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @4meter4: Any updates on the GAR? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
As the GA reassessment appears likely to result in the article's GA status being kept, this is probably ready for a new review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 Procedurally that doesn’t work. A new reviewer can’t approve the hook until the GA reassessment (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Steve Cherry/1) is closed officially, and the tags are removed from the article. Since it’s 2 editors supporting the GA status (myself included and the original GA reviewer) and 1 editor opposing, I don’t feel comfortable closing it myself. I think an editor other than myself or the others involved in the GA review could close it out and remove the tags if they agree with the narrow consensus to do so. Until then we can’t move forward at DYK. I am hoping an editor here will step up to the plate and help out at the GA review.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @4meter4: Would you be okay if I closed it in your stead? I could try, but I've never closed a GAR before. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: It's ok if you do, as long as you take the time to really look at the complaints and evaluate whether they have indeed been addressed. If you think the concerns still have merit, then say so and the GA reassessment will have to continue. If you agree that things are good, close it as meeting GA, remove the tags on the article, and then inform us here. Thanks for being willing to participate.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @4meter4: I've now closed the reassessment as a pass and I believe you are now free to remove the tags in the article as I don't think they apply anymore. As this is my first time closing a GAR, let me know if there are any issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: You still need to close the GA review by placing the archive top and archive bottom templates found at Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Let me know if you have any questions.4meter4 (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @4meter4: I've now closed the reassessment as a pass and I believe you are now free to remove the tags in the article as I don't think they apply anymore. As this is my first time closing a GAR, let me know if there are any issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: It's ok if you do, as long as you take the time to really look at the complaints and evaluate whether they have indeed been addressed. If you think the concerns still have merit, then say so and the GA reassessment will have to continue. If you agree that things are good, close it as meeting GA, remove the tags on the article, and then inform us here. Thanks for being willing to participate.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @4meter4: Would you be okay if I closed it in your stead? I could try, but I've never closed a GAR before. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 Procedurally that doesn’t work. A new reviewer can’t approve the hook until the GA reassessment (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Steve Cherry/1) is closed officially, and the tags are removed from the article. Since it’s 2 editors supporting the GA status (myself included and the original GA reviewer) and 1 editor opposing, I don’t feel comfortable closing it myself. I think an editor other than myself or the others involved in the GA review could close it out and remove the tags if they agree with the narrow consensus to do so. Until then we can’t move forward at DYK. I am hoping an editor here will step up to the plate and help out at the GA review.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
New review needed, please. MeegsC (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Approving ALT4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)