Template:Did you know nominations/El Protector (2016)

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.

The result was: promoted by Jolly Ω Janner 02:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

El Protector (2016)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... Mexican professional wrestler Atomic Star finally won the El Protector tournament after being unsuccessful in the 2014 and 2015 tournaments??

• Alt1 - ...professional wrestler Atomic Star became the only rookie to compete in three El Protector tournaments when he won the 2016 El Protector?

• Reviewed: Star Trek/Planet of the Apes: The Primate Directive

Created by MPJ-DK (talk). Self-nominated at 02:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

• What's so interesting about the hook? In every sports there are people who finally wins after loosing many times. It doesn't matter if it is a tournament or a simple title win. Note that this is just a drive-by comment. Ikhtiar H (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

it is a "rookie tournament", few people compete in that tournament more than twice. MPJ-US  13:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well in most sports there are people who finally score "50 goals" or "200 runs" or whatever the case may be. Alt1 clarifies that he's the first to do this, so it's not that he won in general but that he's the first to do so after being unsuccessful in two previous tournaments. MPJ-US  21:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Alt1 looks much better, being the 'only' one. Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Review

• Article

1. Old enough at time of nomination
2. Long enough at 3100 characters
3. Background only has one inline citation and there are no general citations so it's unclear whether some of the information is WP:OR or not. (I don't read Spanish, so I'm assuming good faith on the sourcing)

• Hook

1. Both are short enough
2. I think ALT1 is more interesting, and that Ikhtiar H brings up a good point above as to why the original hook isn't that interesting or accesible

• Other

1. QPQ done
2. No image

• Result I would like to see the background section be better sourced, even if it's just a general citation, before recommending the article be featured.

• Thank you for your review and your input. Looking at the article I realized that I put all the sources in one section, but nothing really in the Background section as you pointed out. I went through the article to ensure it's all cited. Hopefully that covers it @Wugapodes:? And I agree, ALT1 would be the one to go with.  MPJ-US  03:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'd say it's good to go! Wugapodes (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)