Template:Did you know nominations/KWCH-DT
- 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 Lightburst (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
KWCH-DT
- ... that a Kansas TV station claimed it had "The Look of a Leader" and then went on to become the leader in its market? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-wichita-eagle-changes-at-kwch-revive/68808886/ and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/68809390/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Issey Cross
- Comment: (QPQ 1 of 3)
Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 18:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/KWCH-DT; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Substantial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. Article was nominated within 7 days of passing GAR. QPQ has been completed. No pings on Earwigs for copyvio. Hook is interesting, cited, and short enough for DYK.
- Hi Morgan695, wanted to flag something in your review for your knowledge. WP:DYKR straight up says,
The fact that an article has been accepted as a Good article should not be considered an assumption that the article meets these criteria.
Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Re-review needed. Not only can't you assume anything from the GA review—there have been newly passed GAs that end up being delisted by issues uncovered by the DYK reviewer—we don't allow GA reviewers to review the same article at DYK because of this possibility. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Morgan695, wanted to flag something in your review for your knowledge. WP:DYKR straight up says,
- It was hard for me to connect the second part of the hook in the article but I got there. The article is a GA so it meets criteria for inclusion. It is neutral and the information is properly cited. The hook is in the article and it is moderately interesting. It appears to be free of plagiarism and the qpq is done. Bruxton (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)