Template:Did you know nominations/Shana Madoff
The following is an archived discussion of Shana Madoff's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Carabinieri (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC).
Shana Madoff, Eric Swanson
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that Shana Madoff met her future husband Eric Swanson when he was investigating whether her uncle Bernie Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme?
- Reviewed: .Malcolm Brodie (journalist)
Created by Epeefleche (talk). Self nominated at 20:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
- Both articles are new, long enough and posted on the due date. No copy vio. Very well referenced to the hook. Shana Madoff
and Eric Swanson Good to go.--Nvvchar. 03:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Both articles are new, long enough and posted on the due date. No copy vio. Very well referenced to the hook. Shana Madoff
Both articles have bare refs (FN6 in Shana, and several in Eric), and cannot be approved until they're fixed. The original review, of course, should not have been unsigned reviews and undated; it's also helpful when the approval tick is placed at the beginning of the comment so it can be seen by promoters. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Bare refs addressed.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note -- in case Nvv's approval was missed, because it was placed high in the comments even though it is the last comment prior to this one, it is here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that approval was made on February 16, but was unsigned or dated...and given the state of the refs, shouldn't have been given. There's no indication that he checked the refs that were in question when he added his sig yesterday, and I've asked him to come back to check again and give an approval if/when they check out. Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ahah. OK. All in due course -- I'm sure at some point either he or someone else will check. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
. References verified and found in order. My earlier review stands. Both articles Good to go. However, sorry for the delay in responding. I got busy in real life.--Nvvchar. 05:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ahah. OK. All in due course -- I'm sure at some point either he or someone else will check. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, that approval was made on February 16, but was unsigned or dated...and given the state of the refs, shouldn't have been given. There's no indication that he checked the refs that were in question when he added his sig yesterday, and I've asked him to come back to check again and give an approval if/when they check out. Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
