634:
189:
173:
300:
293:
286:
278:
262:
246:
181:
166:
270:
238:
456:
The article is long enough for DYK's requirements. (The requirements do not mention excluding plot summaries.) The citations are adequate for DYK's requirements. Jrcla2 is correct that the citation for the hook fact needs to come immediately after the hook fact sentence, even if that means using the
372:
Yes, it does. Click on the source that says 1 and you will see that it says "the opening sequence pans across Jaime’s bedroom highlighting a Dark Knight
Returns poster." "Yes it's an opinion, but unfortunately the DYK-creator doesn't really get a whole lot of say in whether it's interesting or not."
360:
No, the hook doesn't have a reference after it. The sentence "The Clock King segment includes pop culture references while Jaime's room has a The Dark Knight
Returns poster." has no such citation. Also, there's a reason why "Interest" is an automatic option for reviewers of other DYKs. It's because,
419:
cited in this article is not. I have spent more time trying to explain why your assessment is incorrect than it would have taken to have just fixed it myself, but that's not the point of reviewing a DYK nom. And to answer your question, ever since they had a big debate about how to reform the DYK
431:
I never agreed with that because the citation still follows it. About the
Interest criterion, I disagree with it and it was only imposed by a small faction of editors. So the point of DYK is to not pass an article because of your stupid computer and because there is not enough citations in your
497:
Long enough, as noted above. Referencing has been touched up for the hook. I think the amount and quality of the references is enough for DYK. I'd prefer a hook about "wormholes, single-cell organisms and evil intergalactic pirates being mentioned in the same breath as Batman".
361:
as someone who doesn't have a personal, vested interest in the subject, the hook is supposed to intrigue me enough to want to read it. Yes it's an opinion, but unfortunately the DYK-creator doesn't really get a whole lot of say in whether it's interesting or not.
315:
The article is very short, like I mentioned, so I'm not sure if it meets the character minimum. The sentences are choppy and kind of confusing. The proposed hook is also grammatically awkward and not very interesting. IMO a better one would be
555:
I tweaked the hook. The quote says, "Again, if you have a problem with wormholes, single-cell organisms and evil intergalactic pirates being mentioned in the same breath as Batman, you're not going to like this show very much".
415:?" is supposed to be directly verifiable based off of a citation in the article which directly succeeds the sentence. Not one sentence later, not two sentences later, immediately. Hence, the sentence which
349:. My DYK check says 1,742 characters. What is interesting is a person's opinion. I find it interesting because it references a comic story arc that is totally different in contrast to the show's tone.
123:
659:
36:
242:
The DYKCheck won't work on my computer, and the length looks very short, so I need another editor to confirm the minimum 1,500 character limit.
509:
Since the reliable source says intergalactic pirates, I guess that it is fine. Admittedly, I haven't watched the episode in a long time.
571:
wrote that some people will like "wormholes, single-cell organisms and evil intergalactic pirates ... mentioned in the same breath as
40:
17:
403:
100:
540:" if they did not like "wormholes, single-cell organisms and evil intergalactic pirates ... mentioned in the same breath as
577:
536:
410:
320:
107:
44:
77:
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
397:
94:
469:
I took issue with the fact that the reviewer said that DYK nominators have no say in what is interesting.
462:
642:
605:
549:
503:
61:
273:
Ehhh there are only four, and they aren't used more than once each, so I'm on the fence about it.
457:
citation twice. I would also say Jrcla2's suggested alterntive hook is much more interesting. --
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
458:
638:
601:
545:
499:
425:
366:
339:
254:
57:
346:
616:
586:
561:
514:
489:
474:
437:
389:
384:
There is also nothing wrong with having four citations as long as notability is shown.
378:
354:
137:
633:
653:
188:
172:
421:
362:
335:
250:
299:
292:
285:
277:
261:
245:
180:
165:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
281:
Most editors don't know how to format cites, unfortunately, so these seem ok.
269:
237:
612:
582:
557:
510:
485:
470:
433:
385:
374:
350:
133:
526:
Since DYK hooks aren't supposed to be purely plot, I would like to suggest
325:
420:
system (and consequently, since "interest" became a review criterion).
572:
541:
329:
568:
531:
334:
Just a thought. As it is now the hook doesn't meet criteria.
395:
In a DYK nom, the hook proposed, in this case "... that a
637:
SL93's alt is good to go, tick based on previous review.
82:
328:, single-cell organisms and evil intergalactic
484:intergalactic pirate if that hook was chosen.
140:). Self nom at 02:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
8:
432:opinion? What DYK rules state these things?
345:The hook is referenced to the source after
660:Passed DYK nominations from September 2011
200:
176:The hook in question is not referenced.
143:
7:
24:
18:Template:Did you know nominations
632:
608:) 07:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
600:Name of the episode is missing.
552:) 00:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
506:) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
465:) 23:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
428:) 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
392:) 23:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
369:) 23:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
357:) 23:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
342:) 23:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
298:
291:
284:
276:
268:
260:
257:) 00:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
244:
236:
187:
179:
171:
164:
64:) 07:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
645:) 11:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
619:) 11:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
589:) 00:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
564:) 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
517:) 00:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
492:) 23:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
477:) 23:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
440:) 23:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
381:) 23:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
534:wrote that nobody would like "
404:Batman: The Brave and the Bold
101:Batman: The Brave and the Bold
1:
578:The Rise of the Blue Beetle!
537:The Rise of the Blue Beetle!
411:The Rise of the Blue Beetle!
321:The Rise of the Blue Beetle!
108:The Rise of the Blue Beetle!
69:The Rise of the Blue Beetle!
401:poster can be found in the
98:poster can be found in the
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
676:
530:: ... that a reviewer for
265:Created on September 6th.
567:... that a reviewer for
249:Length checks out OK. --
32:Please do not modify it.
398:The Dark Knight Returns
95:The Dark Knight Returns
41:the article's talk page
303:None that I can tell.
132:Created/expanded by
124:Norrköpings Tidningar
203:
146:
201:
144:
307:
306:
196:
195:
192:Frankly, boring.
141:
667:
636:
302:
295:
288:
280:
272:
264:
248:
240:
204:
191:
183:
175:
168:
147:
131:
52:The result was:
34:
675:
674:
670:
669:
668:
666:
665:
664:
650:
649:
648:
309:
224:
219:
214:
202:Article review
198:
89:
87:
83:Article history
71:
65:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
673:
671:
663:
662:
652:
651:
647:
646:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
593:
592:
591:
590:
565:
521:
520:
519:
518:
494:
493:
478:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
382:
305:
304:
296:
289:
282:
274:
266:
258:
233:
232:
229:
226:
221:
216:
211:
208:
194:
193:
185:
177:
169:
161:
160:
157:
154:
151:
129:
128:
127:
126:
114:
113:
86:
85:
80:
78:Back to T:TDYK
74:
72:
70:
67:
50:
49:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
672:
661:
658:
657:
655:
644:
640:
635:
631:
630:
618:
614:
610:
609:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
588:
584:
580:
579:
574:
570:
566:
563:
559:
554:
553:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
522:
516:
512:
508:
507:
505:
501:
496:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
464:
460:
439:
435:
430:
429:
427:
423:
418:
414:
413:
412:
406:
405:
400:
399:
394:
393:
391:
387:
383:
380:
376:
371:
370:
368:
364:
359:
358:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
341:
337:
333:
331:
327:
323:
322:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
301:
297:
294:
290:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
252:
247:
243:
239:
235:
234:
230:
227:
222:
217:
212:
209:
206:
205:
199:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
148:
142:
139:
135:
125:
121:
118:
117:
116:
115:
111:
110:
109:
103:
102:
97:
96:
91:
90:
84:
81:
79:
76:
75:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
48:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
576:
535:
527:
481:
480:It would be
459:Demiurge1000
455:
416:
409:
408:
402:
396:
373:Since when?
319:
317:
308:
241:
197:
145:Hook review
130:
119:
106:
105:
99:
93:
53:
51:
31:
28:
639:Crisco 1492
602:Crisco 1492
575:?" in the "
546:Crisco 1492
500:Crisco 1492
231:Plagiarism
228:Neutrality
156:Neutrality
92:... that a
58:Crisco 1492
324:contained
318:"... that
220:citations
215:citations
417:should be
326:wormholes
218:Formatted
184:Neutral.
159:Interest
153:Citation
654:Category
407:episode
225:sources
223:Reliable
213:Adequate
210:Newness
120:Reviewed
104:episode
54:promoted
611:Fixed.
330:pirates
207:Length
150:Format
573:Batman
542:Batman
422:Jrcla2
363:Jrcla2
336:Jrcla2
251:Orlady
16:<
643:talk
617:talk
613:SL93
606:talk
587:talk
583:SL93
562:talk
558:SL93
550:talk
528:ALT2
515:talk
511:SL93
504:talk
490:talk
486:SL93
475:talk
471:SL93
463:talk
438:talk
434:SL93
426:talk
390:talk
386:SL93
379:talk
375:SL93
367:talk
355:talk
351:SL93
340:talk
255:talk
138:talk
134:SL93
62:talk
569:IGN
532:IGN
56:by
43:or
656::
581:"
544:?
482:an
347:it
122::
73:(
39:,
641:(
615:(
604:(
585:(
560:(
548:(
513:(
502:(
488:(
473:(
461:(
436:(
424:(
388:(
377:(
365:(
353:(
338:(
332:?
253:(
136:(
112:?
88:)
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
