Template:Did you know nominations/Estonian Sports Museum
- The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Estonian Sports Museum
[edit]- ... that the Estonian Sports Museum has helped organise an exhibition to celebrate Estonia's first Olympics in London?
- Reviewed: Druid's Head Inn, Monmouth
Created/expanded by Victuallers (talk). Self nom at 21:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice little article. My only concern is that the ref format is not consistent. Some use cite web some don't, so the format is not the same, for example, some are "Retrieve..." some are "access....". Can you make all the web refs consistent with cite web? PumpkinSky talk 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review - but actually this isnt part of the DYK criteria. This article was written by more than one person. Victuallers (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's sloppy and looks horrible.PumpkinSky talk 10:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Much better now. Remember that although many concerns are not part of the criteria, DYKs get a lot of views and it's always helpful to new editors to demonstrate good practice where we can. --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to Br'er and Rexx for fixing things. Rexx is precisely right, even if it's not a firm rule, we still don't want sloppy stuff off the main page. PumpkinSky talk 12:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Much better now. Remember that although many concerns are not part of the criteria, DYKs get a lot of views and it's always helpful to new editors to demonstrate good practice where we can. --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's sloppy and looks horrible.PumpkinSky talk 10:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
ok now. PumpkinSky talk 12:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the errors - useful to flag any extra up on the article's talk page. I nice way of handling this is to approve and then make suggestions - otherwise it can appear that approval is being withheld. Victuallers (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Or the nom just to fix, seeing the good, rather than complain about it. PumpkinSky talk 14:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)