Template:Did you know nominations/ThePsychoExWife.com

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ThePsychoExWife.com

Created/expanded by 72.74.207.196 (talk). Nominated by 72.74.206.122 (talk) at 01:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article has an orphan tagged that needs to be addressed by linking from other articles within the encyclopedia and then removed. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Is that really necessary for a DYK nomination? 72.74.214.237 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've deorphaned the article. Now it's time for a review. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg - As an aside: the hook was nominated and created by an IP. DYK requires autoconfirmed status to nominate articles to DYK. EagerToddler39 (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg EagerToddler, that's not a DYK rule; it's just an artifact of the setup of Wikipedia. The fact is that the interface does not allow non-autoconfirmed users to create new template pages, so they are physically prevented from submitting DYK noms according to the normal procedure. There never has been an intent to block them from participating in DYK. Ideally, an IP user like this one would register and become autoconfirmed. Failing that, they are encouraged to post their proposals for noms (including proposed hooks, image file names, etc.) at WT:DYK and request that someone else create the nom on their behalf. --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have not done a complete review yet, but I find that the article has some policy issues: non-neutral POV and original research. Its content and tone are skewed to the perspective of the website owners, in opposition to the "ex-wife". (For example, I see adoption of the website's perspective in statements like Template:Tq and Template:Tq, particularly in the use of words like "clarified" and "explained" and "genuine".) The original research is in the form of statements like Template:Tq and Template:Tq, which seem to represent a Wikipedia contributor's evaluations -- not someone else's published evaluations. --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking over the article. I tried to keep it in as neutral a tone as possible but I don't have a problem if certain statements need to be reworded. 72.74.217.22 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made a few changes. Do you think I'd be better off removing the two quotes in the "History" section? Please let me know if there's anything else I've missed. Thanks. 72.74.217.22 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)