Template:Did you know nominations/Herman Frederik Carel ten Kate (artist), Herman Frederik Carel ten Kate (anthropologist)
The following is an archived discussion of Herman Frederik Carel ten Kate (artist), Herman Frederik Carel ten Kate (anthropologist)'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 DYK WikiProject's (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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Herman Frederik Carel ten Kate (artist), Herman Frederik Carel ten Kate (anthropologist)[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that the anthropologist Herman ten Kate, the junior, son of the artist, Herman ten Kate, the senior (pictured), wrote about skulls of decapitated criminals?
Created by Rosiestep (talk), Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Both these articles are new enough and long enough. I see no sign of close paraphrasing. The hook fact is referenced to a book and accepted in good faith. The image is in the public domain and I have added (pictured) to the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a bit awkward, but I'm wondering whether QPQ credit should be given for the second review, Template:Did you know nominations/Indian National Commission for Co-Operation with UNESCO, given the fundamental problems I found when I went to promote it, including a size of 1363 characters according to DYKcheck, well under the minimum required. The first (Idaho) review is more debatable, since DYKcheck gives 1581 characters, though I'm dubious about counting the third paragraph since it's really just an explanation of table sources and a key to the table, consuming 401 of those characters while doing so. I think, under the circumstances, something more comprehensive that "All DYK rules followed" is needed for reviews, such as which checks were done and what the results were. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- In view of User: Crisco 1492's suggested review of 5x expansion on Template:Did you know nominations/Indian National Commission for Co-Operation with UNESCO done by me in the article and his approval tick clarifying the above "awkward" observations on Template:Did you know nominations/List of longest streams of Idaho, the approval tick by Cwmhiraeth to the above two articles needs to be restored by Admn.--Nvvchar. 18:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I did express doubts about the Idaho review, and am happy to go with Crisco 1492's view about that one. However, any admin who wishes to overrule me by saying your original review of Template:Did you know nominations/Indian National Commission for Co-Operation with UNESCO was adequate will have to do so here, and I'd be very interested in their criteria for doing so. Your subsequent expansion of the article is laudable, but it isn't a quid pro quo review by any stretch of the imagination, and it's the quid pro quo review part that's relevant here. In my view, you have fulfilled one but still owe one. I'll ask Crisco 1492 his opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Missing basic criteria like 1500 characters should not be counted, in my opinion — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK. I have reviewed this article Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Murray (Royal Navy officer) now, as I have added lot of text to the UNESCO article and some one else has to review it.--Nvvchar. 07:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- QPQ issues now satisfied; restoring AGF tick per review above by Cwmhiraeth. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)