Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Edward Snowden

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 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Statue of Edward Snowden[edit]

(

)

...that a bust of Edward Snowden was replaced by a hologram?

Reviewed: Luxembourg Freeport
Comment: Rubbish hook I know!...

Created by Gareth E Kegg (talk), Epicgenius (talk) Fixuture (talk), and Vesuvius Dogg (talk). Nominated by Gareth E Kegg (talk) at 09:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

Comment Review under way. Earwigs Copyviolation detector WP:QPQ does not appear to have been completed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I also be credited with this DYK? I have expanded it a little. I will do QPQ if Gareth E Kegg does not do it within the next few days.
Also, I'd like to propose a new hook:
- ALT1: ..that a bust of Edward Snowden was erected next to a New York City monument to American Revolutionary War prisoners?
Epic Genius (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Do correct me, but I think I'm the only one who needs to do a QPQ, which I've done. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Luxembourg Freeport says "Fascinating, review required! User:Gareth E Kegg." Obviously, only one QPQ required. However, am I missing something? To me it looks like you say you haven't finished the job. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that refers to the reviews required from the authors of the Luxemburg Freeport article. And I forgot to tick it. Darn. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Gareth, you can use {{DYK checklist}} to check criteria off for the review. Or, if you passed the review already, just say that review has been passed. Epic Genius (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK checklist template

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed: - n/a
Used in article: - n
Clear at 100px: - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Passes DYK checklist.

Review Good to go! Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. Hook references are verified and cited. No copyright violations or too close paraphrasing. Earwig's copy violation detector report gives it a clean bill. Both hooks are hooky enough, I think, and relate directly to the essence of the article. It is interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ done. Additonal Co-creators should be added, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- User:7&6=thirteen, if you nominate yourself as co-creator, it may make the DYK review invalid. I don't really see any other co-creators, according to the contributions report. Epic Genius (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I was nominating you. While I certainly could qualify as a co-creator based on my substantial edits, I don't want to burden the process. Hares and hounds and all that. I know what I did, and another DYK, although welcome, is of no consequence. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds OK. By the way, I fixed the hook's links per WP:EGG. Epic Genius (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)