Template:Did you know nominations/Pennekamp & King of Kings (horse)

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 Miyagawa (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pennekamp, King of Kings (horse)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

)

... that the racehorses Pennekamp in 1995 and King of Kings in 1998 were both winners of the 2000 Guineas in May, found lame after losing the Epsom Derby in June, and then retired to stud soon after?

Created/expanded by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 06:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks like additional gaming of the system. "Created/expanded by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) " This combination of author/nominator being different results in a number of DYK noms where neither the nominator, nor the expander has to do a DYK nomination. If this was once or twice or three times or five times, this would not be a problem. But it is going beyond that. System gaming seems to avoid QPQ seems further enhanced by Tigerboy1966 showing up to fix DYK issues and taking credit for DYKs in Wikicup. Should be a no go because of lack of QPQ. --LauraHale (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Laura. Is this getting personal now? Would it be acceptable if someone else nominates this article? Tigerboy was already cleared of any wrongdoing at WikiCup almost a week ago. According to the current DYK rules, no QPQ review is needed for this nom (but Tigerboy is encouraged to do some). Please be encouraged to speed up the discussion initiated by you at 08:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC) on rule changes on WT:DYK, but imposing new rules before they are adopted is very wrong, especially for nominations made before you started that discussion on rule changes. --PFHLai (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Tigerboy has now done a QPQ, so the need for a QPQ is met for this nom. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 04:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

QPQ need met. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

. Both articles look good - sources, paraphrase etc. Hook verified and works for me, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)