Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/William F. Mullen, III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maile66 (talk | contribs) at 17:46, 27 March 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

William F. Mullen, III

Created/expanded by Jdanbeck (talk). Self nominated at 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

  • Maile66 I fixed the review, it should be good to go this time. Jdanbeck (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Jdanbeck, I'm not sure what you did that you believe "fixed the review". The Snezhnika you list above really doesn't hit on the DYK criteria for doing a review. You did a little better on Love and Friendship, but there's a ways to go. There seems to be misunderstanding here, but if you would please read the link above for the DYK Reviewing guide, it should be clearer. When a promoter wants to move an approved review into the prep area, the promoter needs more detailed review information than "good to go". And offering some tips on how the article was written, is not part of the criteria. Look at how other reviews are done.
  • Articles do need to be checked for copyright violations or close paraphrasing againt the sources, and the "Dup detector" tool is provided in the upper right hand corner of the nomination template when opened in the edit window.
  • Is the hook stated in the article and sourced?
  • Is there adequate sourcing in the article, rule-of-thumb is one inline citation per paragraph?
  • Are the hook and the article both written from a NPOV (neutral point of view)?
  • Does the article meet the standards of minimum length in prose characters?
  • Different criteria on "newness" and length exists for different types - Newly created; Expanded 5X; Good Article.