Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Jones (footballer, born 1994)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 — Maile (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Alex Jones (footballer, born 1994)

[edit]

Created by Struway2 (talk) and EchetusXe (talk). Nominated by EchetusXe (talk) at 19:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC).

  • The hook references a passage that is cited to RS and reads "failed to forward the completed paperwork to FIFA before the transfer deadline" which I equate with an "administrative error." Copyvio, newness, and length all checks. QPQ done. GTG. (second review may be needed per ANI) LavaBaron (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Second full review required. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    • What does ANI mean?EchetusXe 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
      • EchetusXe, ANI means Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. This requirement is actually from the regular Administrators' Noticeboard, and has been reposted here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah ok, thanks. New Zealand Football stated that "The transfer request was entered into the online system on Saturday [January 30] by the Wellington Phoenix at a time where our appointed representative was without regular internet access", so they appointed a staff member to process the paperwork but the staff members was unable to deal with it as he was unable to access the internet, for whatever reason. As, LavaBaron says, the unnecessary delays in processing the paperwork are simplified as 'administrative errors'.EchetusXe 07:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Second full review still required. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Unless something more interesting can be found for a hook, let's just not. EEng 18:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with LavaBaron's assessment. The article is long enough and new enough, the hook is cited, the article is neutral and conforms to policy. I disagree with EEng that the hook is uninteresting, but think it could be better expressed as ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)