435:
475:
182:
478:
Unfortunately the prose section of this list is not long enough (<1500 characters). I've always had a bit of an issue with DYK's approach to lists, but as this one isn't very extensive I can't really say that the it is a sufficiently detailed list so as to allow bending of the rules. I know that's
275:
How about you put this there, then, where it will do some good. And be sure to do a check for close paraphrasing/copying (and note whether it passed) as well. Neutrality of article and hook are rarely a problem, so not mentioning same doesn't raise red flags, but overly close paraphrasing is an issue
256:
It is. It was newly created within 5 days, more than 1500 characters (over 2000), properly cited, hook is less than 200 characters and is interesting enough. I didn't know stubs weren't allowed as it doesn't say above that stubs aren't allowed, even though now it doesn't even say stub. So yes, this
357:
You did it properly? A green tick is not a proper review, and given your experience with DYK (User:DYKUpdateBot have edited your talk-page 26 times) you should know better. Yes, the article was 1554 characters when you reviewed it, but given the lack of elaboration from you and the stub-tag on the
185:
QPQ credit may not be claimed until review is explained at the
Hawking nomination. A check mark approval without any explanation of the review steps completed for an article that was clearly marked as a stub and therefore ineligible for approval does not qualify as a review.
131:
358:
article, Bluemoonset questioned your review and Maile66 did the review instead. Since your review needed another reviewer to finish it off, you should go ahead and do another review orelse this nomination will be rejected.
373:
Apart from the stub, nothing else was wrong with the review. But to keep the peace, I'll review another one. And I don't know why the bot has edited my talk page 26 times, as I've only posted 24 successful hooks.
40:
415:
107:
339:
I did it properly the first time anyway. So another is not required. Several people do not state each and every point it passes. I've had people review my nominations who say next to nothing.
291:
BlueMoonset, I finished the review on the
Steohen Hawking article. I didn't see your note here until after I did that. But maybe Aaron could do another QPQ. Didn't mean to mess anyone up.
36:
237:
Actually, it isn't. Can we have that explanation of what items you covered in your review there, please? If you're a slow typist, it will take two minutes, three tops. See
502:
98:
17:
479:
frustrating, especially given the QPQ problems above, but I'm sure that you can carry that review through to another submission.
44:
117:
82:
281:
246:
191:
65:
113:
458:
439:
426:
383:
359:
348:
325:
315:
266:
220:
206:
145:
443:
363:
329:
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
296:
277:
242:
187:
61:
480:
450:
418:
375:
340:
307:
258:
212:
198:
141:
434:
496:
292:
474:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
181:
102:
132:
Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen
Hawking: Master of the Universe
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
238:
416:
Template:Did you know nominations/The Wolf of Wall Street (film)
438:
Good thing - now we need someone to review this nomination.
324:
You should do another review, and do it properly this time.
74:
List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.)
87:
8:
49:No further edits should be made to this page
168:The following discussion has been closed.
159:
148:). Self nom at 17:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
276:that should always be checked. Thanks.
503:Failed DYK nominations from July 2012
7:
24:
239:T:TDYK#How to review a nomination
18:Template:Did you know nominations
473:
433:
180:
32:Please do not modify this page.
446:) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
1:
366:) 21:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
332:) 20:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
306:But I'd already reviewed it.
299:) 20:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
241:for an example. Many thanks.
68:) 00:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
284:) 14:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
249:) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
194:) 03:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
486:09:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
460:21:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
428:21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
385:21:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
350:20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
317:11:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
519:
268:11:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
222:09:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
208:10:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
171:Please do not modify it.
41:the article's talk page
140:Created/expanded by
211:This is sorted now.
197:I've replied there.
108:ranked at number one
99:Just the Way You Are
97:... that the song "
118:Adult Contemporary
468:
467:
149:
510:
477:
455:
437:
423:
380:
345:
312:
263:
217:
203:
184:
173:
160:
139:
101:", performed by
60:by —
56:The result was:
34:
518:
517:
513:
512:
511:
509:
508:
507:
493:
492:
491:
485:
451:
419:
376:
341:
308:
259:
213:
199:
169:
163:QPQ discussion
120:year end chart?
94:
92:
88:Article history
76:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
516:
514:
506:
505:
495:
494:
490:
489:
488:
487:
484:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
430:
429:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
368:
367:
352:
351:
334:
333:
319:
318:
301:
300:
286:
285:
270:
269:
257:is is sorted.
251:
250:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
175:
174:
165:
164:
158:
157:
156:
155:
137:
136:
135:
134:
122:
121:
91:
90:
85:
83:Back to T:TDYK
79:
77:
75:
72:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
515:
504:
501:
500:
498:
482:
476:
472:
471:
470:
469:
459:
456:
454:
448:
447:
445:
441:
436:
432:
431:
427:
424:
422:
417:
414:
411:
410:
384:
381:
379:
372:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
354:
353:
349:
346:
344:
338:
337:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
322:
321:
320:
316:
313:
311:
305:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:
288:
287:
283:
279:
274:
273:
272:
271:
267:
264:
262:
255:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
221:
218:
216:
210:
209:
207:
204:
202:
196:
195:
193:
189:
183:
179:
178:
177:
176:
172:
167:
166:
162:
161:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
143:
133:
129:
126:
125:
124:
123:
119:
116:
115:
110:
109:
104:
100:
96:
95:
89:
86:
84:
81:
80:
73:
71:
67:
63:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
452:
420:
412:
377:
342:
309:
260:
214:
200:
170:
138:
127:
112:
111:on the U.S.
106:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
481:violet/riga
278:BlueMoonset
243:BlueMoonset
188:BlueMoonset
62:Crisco 1492
103:Bruno Mars
413:Reviewed:
142:Calvin999
114:Billboard
497:Category
457:•
440:Mentoz86
425:•
382:•
360:Mentoz86
347:•
326:Mentoz86
314:•
265:•
219:•
205:•
128:Reviewed
58:rejected
293:Maile66
70:Length
483:
453:Aaron
421:Aaron
378:Aaron
343:Aaron
310:Aaron
261:Aaron
215:Aaron
201:Aaron
449:You?
16:<
444:talk
364:talk
330:talk
297:talk
282:talk
247:talk
192:talk
146:talk
66:talk
43:or
499::
130::
105:,
78:(
39:,
442:(
362:(
328:(
295:(
280:(
245:(
190:(
144:(
93:)
64:(
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
