Template:Did you know nominations/Sammy Younge Jr.
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sammy Younge Jr.
[edit]
- ... that Sammy Younge Jr. (pictured) was the first black college student to be murdered for his involvement in the African-American civil rights movement?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The International Swingers
- Comment: I've been promoting prep areas to the main page a lot recently... now deciding to make another DYK of my own. (It's been a while) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Created by Coffee (talk). Self nominated at 02:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC).
16pxFull review needed. DYK requires reviews that explain what has been checked. "LGTM" is about as far from that as you can get. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)- BlueMoonset: Is there a reason you didn't bother to ping Ironholds, the reviewer? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- It does? Because the dropdown doesn't say anything about that. I picked the tick mark very precisely; I checked all the things. As compared to the AGF mark, which would indicate, say, checking but a lack of source access or language skills. Can you point me to where the policy says this so I can get an idea of how things should be formatted? Ironholds (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely no policy that requires that someone lay out every item they checked to add the tick. Using common sense, the tick implies inherently that all of the required items have been checked. - From what I've seen this is a personal requirement of BlueMoonset who seems to think they run the DYK arena (which I'll kindly remind them, they do not). Ironholds checked all of the required items, and the request for a new review is simply unnecessary bureaucracy. Therefore, I'd highly suggest that you remove the "again" tick from this BlueMoonset, unless you can provide an actual policy that backs up your bureaucratic requirement. (This is the second time I've run into this ridiculous issue with you, and it's beginning to tick me off.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is far from a personal requirement of mine, Coffee, as you would know if you had checked around; I'm quite surprised that you haven't. I point you both to T:TDYK#How to review a nomination, which says in part:
Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed
. So not inherent at all. Ironholds, since you checked all the things, it will take maybe a minute to write out what these were: newness, size (or expansion), hook, neutrality, sourcing, close paraphrasing, QPQ, and whether image is free and in the article. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)- How's this; I have reviewed and been satisfied by all of the DYK criteria that exist in the DYK requirements list as of the timestamp on this edit. Ironholds (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Allen3: Could you please, for the love of all that is holy, approve this tick. It really shouldn't be this hard to get a properly created article into the DYK queue. - Ironholds has clearly stated twice now that he correctly checked all of the required DYK criteria before adding the tick. I don't understand what else he could possibly need to say. (the way this process is going is really making me think twice about even creating articles for DYK in the future now *sigh*) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. I don't get why people have to write a thousand-word essay explaining how the article meets every DYK criterion. I mean, you could write all that without having checked anything in the article, and you could check the article thoroughly without writing a long explanation. Anyway, this is new enough, long enough, and meets core content policies. Hook cited to RS. Good to go, and I hope you continue contributing to DYK. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- How's this; I have reviewed and been satisfied by all of the DYK criteria that exist in the DYK requirements list as of the timestamp on this edit. Ironholds (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is far from a personal requirement of mine, Coffee, as you would know if you had checked around; I'm quite surprised that you haven't. I point you both to T:TDYK#How to review a nomination, which says in part:
- As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely no policy that requires that someone lay out every item they checked to add the tick. Using common sense, the tick implies inherently that all of the required items have been checked. - From what I've seen this is a personal requirement of BlueMoonset who seems to think they run the DYK arena (which I'll kindly remind them, they do not). Ironholds checked all of the required items, and the request for a new review is simply unnecessary bureaucracy. Therefore, I'd highly suggest that you remove the "again" tick from this BlueMoonset, unless you can provide an actual policy that backs up your bureaucratic requirement. (This is the second time I've run into this ridiculous issue with you, and it's beginning to tick me off.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
