Template:Did you know nominations/List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film)
- 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 Allen3 talk 10:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film)[edit]
[[File:|120px|Chopra at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival ]]
Chopra at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival
... that Priyanka Chopra (pictured) starrer film Mary Kom (2014) won the National Film Award for Best Popular Film Providing Wholesome Entertainment?
- Reviewed: Bridget Jones's Baby
- Comment: Please add this on main page for 5 September 2015, film's first anniversary.—Prashant 06:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Created by Prashant! (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC).
Recently created, no copyvio, QPQ not needed as it's nominator's fifth nomination. Why do you need to write "Priyanka Chopra starrer film". It can be simply as "Mary Kom won the NFA..." -- Frankie talk 17:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with that.—Prashant 19:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- The issue is that it sounds like promotional language like a film poster. It's also highly unlikely that the image would be used as it doesn't help support the hook as Chopra didn't receive the award, she simply appeared in the film which did. People reading this hook would probably more interested that the film was a biopic on a real life boxer.
- ALT1:... that Mary Kom (2014) won the National Film Award for Best Popular Film Providing Wholesome Entertainment?
- Cowlibob (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with him. -- Frankie talk 21:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I totally agree. Thanks @Cowlibob: for the suggestion. The current hook is more interesting.—Prashant 08:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG: Would you like to continue the review FrB.TG? I cannot approve my own hook. Also Prashant, be aware that this or the other Mary Kom DYK will likely be your fifth DYK when promoted. So when that occurs you will be asked to do a review of another DYK before your "sixth" DYK is promoted as the DYK rules say that only the first five DYKs can be nominated without a review of someone else's DYK. Cowlibob (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Prashant!, you now have five DYK credits, so this nomination now requires that quid pro quo review of another DYK nomination. Please do the review—make sure it covers all the criteria—and let us know which one you reviewed. You'll want to look at the reviewing guide, and the rules and supplemental rules for the various criteria. If you need help while reviewing, by all means ask. Thanks. Once the QPQ review is complete, this review can resume. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Just a note that the above user has changed their name since this nomination and is now called Krish!. Cowlibob (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: struck original hook due to objections; Krish!, you need to let us know soon whether you plan to supply a QPQ review or not; if not, we'll have to close the nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Just a note that the above user has changed their name since this nomination and is now called Krish!. Cowlibob (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Prashant!, you now have five DYK credits, so this nomination now requires that quid pro quo review of another DYK nomination. Please do the review—make sure it covers all the criteria—and let us know which one you reviewed. You'll want to look at the reviewing guide, and the rules and supplemental rules for the various criteria. If you need help while reviewing, by all means ask. Thanks. Once the QPQ review is complete, this review can resume. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- @FrB.TG: Would you like to continue the review FrB.TG? I cannot approve my own hook. Also Prashant, be aware that this or the other Mary Kom DYK will likely be your fifth DYK when promoted. So when that occurs you will be asked to do a review of another DYK before your "sixth" DYK is promoted as the DYK rules say that only the first five DYKs can be nominated without a review of someone else's DYK. Cowlibob (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I totally agree. Thanks @Cowlibob: for the suggestion. The current hook is more interesting.—Prashant 08:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with him. -- Frankie talk 21:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with that.—Prashant 19:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- I will supply a QPQ review. Please tell me how to do it. Thanks.—Prashant 15:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to check ALT1 hook now that QPQ has been submitted. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This list is new enough and long enough. The ALT1 hook fact is well-sourced, the article is neutral and does not contain close paraphrasing as far as I can see. QPQ has been satisfactorily done, thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
