Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Game of Change"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Giants2008
(Review)
imported>IagoQnsi
(response to review)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
:* ''Comment:'' Oh, just found out about QPQ – this is my first ever nomination so bear with me. I see that I get five free passes, but I went ahead and did one anyway: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Homo ergaster]]. –[[User:IagoQnsi|<span style="color:#a00;">Iago</span><span style="color:#f50;">Qnsi</span>]] ([[User talk:IagoQnsi|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 02:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 
:* ''Comment:'' Oh, just found out about QPQ – this is my first ever nomination so bear with me. I see that I get five free passes, but I went ahead and did one anyway: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Homo ergaster]]. –[[User:IagoQnsi|<span style="color:#a00;">Iago</span><span style="color:#f50;">Qnsi</span>]] ([[User talk:IagoQnsi|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 02:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 
::*[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] The article is new enough and long enough, with over 5,000 characters. The hook itself is quite timely in nature and meets the formatting requirements. No QPQ review was required in this case (although it's nice that you did one anyway), and the photo licensing looks okay. However, some additional work is needed with the referencing. The aftermath section is entirely unsourced, and the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Loyola-Chicago background section also doesn't have a cite. This information doesn't seem too hard to find references for, but DYK criteria call for information in articles to be reliably sourced, so that must be done before this gets approved. The various aspects of the hook fact are supported in the article, but DYK criteria call for inline citations in the sentence that the relevant fact(s) appear in the article. In this case, to be safe, I'd recommend adding additional cites in the background sentences where the articles mentions Loyola having four black starters and Mississippi State being all-white, each of which come a sentence before existing refs that support the items. I'll AGF on the content supported by ref 6, since I don't have a NYT subscription, but the other content I checked was adequately supported and free of close paraphrasing. [[User:Giants2008|<span style="color: blue">Giants2008</span>]] ([[User talk:Giants2008|<span style="color: darkblue;">Talk</span>]]) 00:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 
::*[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] The article is new enough and long enough, with over 5,000 characters. The hook itself is quite timely in nature and meets the formatting requirements. No QPQ review was required in this case (although it's nice that you did one anyway), and the photo licensing looks okay. However, some additional work is needed with the referencing. The aftermath section is entirely unsourced, and the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Loyola-Chicago background section also doesn't have a cite. This information doesn't seem too hard to find references for, but DYK criteria call for information in articles to be reliably sourced, so that must be done before this gets approved. The various aspects of the hook fact are supported in the article, but DYK criteria call for inline citations in the sentence that the relevant fact(s) appear in the article. In this case, to be safe, I'd recommend adding additional cites in the background sentences where the articles mentions Loyola having four black starters and Mississippi State being all-white, each of which come a sentence before existing refs that support the items. I'll AGF on the content supported by ref 6, since I don't have a NYT subscription, but the other content I checked was adequately supported and free of close paraphrasing. [[User:Giants2008|<span style="color: blue">Giants2008</span>]] ([[User talk:Giants2008|<span style="color: darkblue;">Talk</span>]]) 00:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::*{{re|Giants2008}} Thanks for the review! I've added citations to the Aftermath section, the NIT sentence in the Loyola-Chicago background section, and to the statements in each background section about the racial makeup of each team. (I also ended up expanding the Mississippi State background and Aftermath sections in the process). Is there anything else you think needs adjusting? –[[User:IagoQnsi|<span style="color:#a00;">Iago</span><span style="color:#f50;">Qnsi</span>]] ([[User talk:IagoQnsi|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 03:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 03:27, 10 June 2020

Game of Change

Loyola forward Vic Rouse shoots over Mississippi State's Aubrey Nichols.
Loyola forward Vic Rouse shoots over Mississippi State's Aubrey Nichols.

Created by IagoQnsi (talk). Self-nominated at 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg The article is new enough and long enough, with over 5,000 characters. The hook itself is quite timely in nature and meets the formatting requirements. No QPQ review was required in this case (although it's nice that you did one anyway), and the photo licensing looks okay. However, some additional work is needed with the referencing. The aftermath section is entirely unsourced, and the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Loyola-Chicago background section also doesn't have a cite. This information doesn't seem too hard to find references for, but DYK criteria call for information in articles to be reliably sourced, so that must be done before this gets approved. The various aspects of the hook fact are supported in the article, but DYK criteria call for inline citations in the sentence that the relevant fact(s) appear in the article. In this case, to be safe, I'd recommend adding additional cites in the background sentences where the articles mentions Loyola having four black starters and Mississippi State being all-white, each of which come a sentence before existing refs that support the items. I'll AGF on the content supported by ref 6, since I don't have a NYT subscription, but the other content I checked was adequately supported and free of close paraphrasing. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Template:Re Thanks for the review! I've added citations to the Aftermath section, the NIT sentence in the Loyola-Chicago background section, and to the statements in each background section about the racial makeup of each team. (I also ended up expanding the Mississippi State background and Aftermath sections in the process). Is there anything else you think needs adjusting? –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)