- The following discussion 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 Ohc ¡digame! 07:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Theater Hopper
edit- ... that the webcomic Theater Hopper ran for over ten years?
- ALT1: ... that the abuses suffered by Ben Affleck and Shia LaBeouf in the webcomic Theater Hopper stemmed from the artist's dislike of the actors?
- Reviewed: Western Three-toed Skink
5x expanded by Fourthords (talk). Self nominated at 19:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC).
BabbaQ, the review needs to be more comprehensive (as I've noted on your talk page), and any approval should always specifically mention which hooks are approved (I've labeled one of the ALT1 so they can be differentiated). However, the reason I've marked this as not ready is that the infobox gives both a launch date and an ending date for the strip, yet the body of the article just mentions that the strip was founded in 2002 (but not when), and gives no indication that the strip is not still being published. Even a lengthy article such as this one should not be missing such a basic fact in its text. (I see, looking at the source, that the end was announced well in advance, in January 2012.) I'll be dropping a note to Fourthords that this needs to be taken care of. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've expanded the lede to include more information about the dates run as well as trying to better summarize the rest of the article. I look forward to your review. Thanks, — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have now reviewed it again. Good work fourthords.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- BabbaQ, when you do a follow-up review like this one, please don't edit your original review comments. Please put your new review comments (and symbol, if any) at the bottom of the discussion page so that other people can tell what you reviewed and when you did so. --Orlady (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have now reviewed it again. Good work fourthords.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've expanded the lede to include more information about the dates run as well as trying to better summarize the rest of the article. I look forward to your review. Thanks, — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Note from BlueMoonset: below is the updated review by BabbaQ, as posted at 10:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC) and revised (expanded) two minutes later at 10:33. As this is the latest review information, it should be placed last, with its tick, so the nomination can be properly promoted; BabbaQ doesn't seem to understand how to clean it up. The original review, as written on 11 January, has been restored above. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)