A fact from Waterloo Park, Norwich appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 May 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that a proposal was made to build a shoe factory on Waterloo Park?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
@EpicPupper: Can you state why you are exempt from QPQ? Article promoted to Good Article on 6 May, 7654 characters of readable prose. Copvio tool reveals violations are unlikely [[1]] and much of the common phrasing is due to proper noun usage. Article has sufficient citations and appears neutral. The hook is mildly interesting but the grammar is clumsy due to hook format (I'm not sure about the rules on this). Also, only part of the park was to be leased. What about, "...that part of Waterloo Park was to be leased for a shoe factory, in a 1911 planning proposal?" Hook cited on line here [[2]]
Ykraps, EpicPupper is exempt from QPQ because it's only his/her second nomination, and QPQs aren't required until after the fifth. Is the copyedited hook better now? If so, can you please indicate your approval with a tick? MeegsC (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MeegsC: Yep, everything looks good to go. Is there any way of checking QPQ exemption, other than reviewing all of a user's contributions?--Ykraps (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ykraps, yes! There's a handy-dandy widget in the DYK toolbox. Copy the nominator's name, click on the QPQ check tool, paste the nominator's name in the box, and see whether or not they have more than 5 credits. If so, they need to do a QPQ. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. MeegsC (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the hook. Brilliantly researched article improved to GA. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@EpicPupper: Can you state why you are exempt from QPQ? Article promoted to Good Article on 6 May, 7654 characters of readable prose. Copvio tool reveals violations are unlikely [[1]] and much of the common phrasing is due to proper noun usage. Article has sufficient citations and appears neutral. The hook is mildly interesting but the grammar is clumsy due to hook format (I'm not sure about the rules on this). Also, only part of the park was to be leased. What about, "...that part of Waterloo Park was to be leased for a shoe factory, in a 1911 planning proposal?" Hook cited on line here [[2]]
@MeegsC: Yep, everything looks good to go. Is there any way of checking QPQ exemption, other than reviewing all of a user's contributions?--Ykraps (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
