Template:Did you know nominations/The Cockroaches

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) 23:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Cockroaches[edit]

(

)

... ~~that after over 20 years, The Cockroaches reunited for two gigs in 2014?~~

ALT1:... that The Cockroaches were the precursor of The Wiggles?
Reviewed: Video gaming in Bangladesh
Comment: I'd like this article to be on the main page on June 27, the second date of the band's reunion gig, if possible. I withdraw this, for obvious reasons. Would've been nice--I'm jus' sayin'! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by Figureskatingfan (talk). Self nominated at 19:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

If an article is brought to GA status, it is otherwise implied that it has met the DYK criteria and then some. I'd personally go with the alternate one, mainly because its hookier, and it's got that good "huh?" feeling to it. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with the alt hook. I actually considered putting off improving this article, when it'd be a perfect DYK for April's Fool's, 'cause the potential is so good. But then The Cockies decided to reunite this month, and I thought now would be a better time. Thanks for the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

ViperSnake151, please don't assume anything. I've reviewed a number of GA articles on this page that had blatant close paraphrasing. Please do a check of the usual DYK criteria per the DYK Reviewing guide. Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Full review needed by new reviewer based on the DYK criteria, and making no assumptions based on it being a GA. Note that this means such criteria as neutrality and close paraphrasing should be checked. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

New enough (GA 13 June, nom 13 June) and long enough. QPQ done. The article is objective, neutral and fully referenced. ALT1 is acceptable and hooky, and checks out with online citaton #38. I have checked dictionaries and I accept that a precursor can overlap its follower in time, and is still a precursor (I'm doing this upfront to prevent later hassle). No disambig links found. All citation links are accessible except two (see issue 2 below). Spot checks found no copyvio or close paraphrasing. Issues: (1) I've struck the original hook because in the 2014 Reunion section of the article it says the group will reunite, the two citations are dates May 2014, and there is nothing to say that the group actually did reunite. If you can produce citations for their 2014 reunion and adjust the text to match the hook, then we can unstrike the original hook and reassess it. (2) ~~Citations #42 and #43 are redirects which need to be corrected.~~ When issue 2 is corrected (issue 1 is optional), then this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. It was surprisingly difficult, but I added a more recent source after updating the info. Should be good now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Figureskatingfan. Re issue 1: the 2014 reunion section now matches the (struck) original hook, but the three new June 2014 citations for it still only say that they are going to reunite; not that they reunited, as in the hook. Re issue 2: I attempted to put this right for you, but failed, so I've struck that issue.--Storye book (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Good to go with ALT1. --Storye book (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the refs issue, so I tried to fix it, too. When I couldn't, I just removed the information, since it wasn't all that important, anyway. Personally, I think the two sources that were published before the reunion dates are okay, but we can go with ALT2 if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Figureskatingfan. Sadly, many hooks are now getting promoted and then pulled from prep on grounds of weak sources - so sources now have to be rock-solid before being passed, if we don't want later delays and more hassle. At least ALT1 should get this nom through its next step.--Storye book (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Still good to go with ALT1. --Storye book (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)