Template:Did you know nominations/Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival

Created by 72.74.206.24 (talk), 72.74.203.80 (talk), 72.74.195.34 (talk). Nominated by Crisco 1492 (talk) at 06:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC).

  • Doing... I'm doing the review. --TitoDutta 08:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
( Multiple issues: a) red links as "Main article" links should be removed, b) if you remove red links that becomes empty section, c) unsourced section d) multiple MoS errors/issues like cap, using bold formatting in a section "H. P. Lovecraft Walking Tour" WP:ALSO. --TitoDutta 11:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Will contact actual nominator (72.74.195.34). Hope s/he finds the message. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The red link articles are still waiting review on AFC. They were created separately because they would have made the main article huge. The only part of the article that's unsourced is a sentence in the intro. It's supported by multiple citations in the history. If there are manual of style issues (I assume that's what you mean) can a Wikipedian fix it? Isn't that was what Wikipedia:Be bold is for? I thought the only thing required for DYK was for the hooks I submit to be from a reliable source. 72.74.216.249 (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Also note that small MOS issues such as the bolding are not DYK criteria in and of themselves. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Welcome 72..... red links as Main article link or See also links are problematic, c) the Awards section is unsourced, yes, I'll fix minor errors if needed, minor MoS errors are not DYK criteria--TitoDutta 23:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • 72, an abbreviated version of your work in progress would be okay in these empty sections (if you've got the sources). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are the links to the AFC pages:

72.74.216.249 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Observation: I can see awards section have been cited, please check the "Main article" issue, ;last day after your posts I though to quick review those two AFC articles, but, later found almost all are primary sources, If I review I'll ask to add at few *at least 1–2 RS). --TitoDutta 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that really nessessary? It's not like they're being used to cite anything controversial. Pretty much all of the pages in Category:Lists of films by award are sourced to official websites including the Cannes and Sundance Film Festivals. The List of Academy Award-winning films doesn't even have any sources. Isn't it alright to use primary sources for citing basic facts? 72.74.198.36 (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)