Template:Did you know nominations/List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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: rejected by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Length

List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.)[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by Calvin999 (talk). Self nom at 17:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

QPQ discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • QPQ credit may not be claimed until review is explained at the Hawking nomination. A check mark approval without any explanation of the review steps completed for an article that was clearly marked as a stub and therefore ineligible for approval does not qualify as a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, it isn't. Can we have that explanation of what items you covered in your review there, please? If you're a slow typist, it will take two minutes, three tops. See T:TDYK#How to review a nomination for an example. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is. It was newly created within 5 days, more than 1500 characters (over 2000), properly cited, hook is less than 200 characters and is interesting enough. I didn't know stubs weren't allowed as it doesn't say above that stubs aren't allowed, even though now it doesn't even say stub. So yes, this is is sorted. Aaron • You Da One 11:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • How about you put this there, then, where it will do some good. And be sure to do a check for close paraphrasing/copying (and note whether it passed) as well. Neutrality of article and hook are rarely a problem, so not mentioning same doesn't raise red flags, but overly close paraphrasing is an issue that should always be checked. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I finished the review on the Steohen Hawking article. I didn't see your note here until after I did that. But maybe Aaron could do another QPQ. Didn't mean to mess anyone up. Maile66 (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You should do another review, and do it properly this time. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I did it properly the first time anyway. So another is not required. Several people do not state each and every point it passes. I've had people review my nominations who say next to nothing. Aaron • You Da One 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You did it properly? A green tick is not a proper review, and given your experience with DYK (User:DYKUpdateBot have edited your talk-page 26 times) you should know better. Yes, the article was 1554 characters when you reviewed it, but given the lack of elaboration from you and the stub-tag on the article, Bluemoonset questioned your review and Maile66 did the review instead. Since your review needed another reviewer to finish it off, you should go ahead and do another review orelse this nomination will be rejected. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Apart from the stub, nothing else was wrong with the review. But to keep the peace, I'll review another one. And I don't know why the bot has edited my talk page 26 times, as I've only posted 24 successful hooks. Aaron • You Da One 21:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Good thing - now we need someone to review this nomination. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    You? Aaron • You Da One 21:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the prose section of this list is not long enough (<1500 characters). I've always had a bit of an issue with DYK's approach to lists, but as this one isn't very extensive I can't really say that the it is a sufficiently detailed list so as to allow bending of the rules. I know that's frustrating, especially given the QPQ problems above, but I'm sure that you can carry that review through to another submission. violet/riga [talk] 09:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/List_of_number-one_adult_contemporary_singles_of_2011_(U.S.)&oldid=1021153108"