Template:Did you know nominations/Paco Campos

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Paco Campos

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Paco Campos scored 127 goals in La Liga, the most by a player from the Canary Islands?

Created by The Almightey Drill (talk). Self nominated at 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC).

• • Reviewed 2013-14 Norwich City season

• @The Almightey Drill: New enough and long enough, meets core content policies mostly. Honors section is unreferenced. AGF Spanish sources. --Jakob (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• OK, good. --Jakob (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• The QPQ review is incomplete. Yoninah (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• No, it isn't. It's just been disputed; that's different. --Jakob (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, "Interesting hook with a source. Valid date." is not a valid DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• What's the point of going so far as to demand this? There's no proof everything wasn't checked, just like there's no proof everything was checked if somebody writes a thousand words explaining how they checked and spotchecked everything. --Jakob (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, please. It's a simple matter of writing one line with the things you checked. As the DYK rules say: Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

  Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

  Obviously, this reviewer only checked the hook fact and the article creation date. That leaves article length, adequate sourcing, hook cited inline, close paraphrasing, and proper footnote style for the prep promoter and the queue administrator to check. We're trying to increase accountability at the reviewer level. Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yoninah, I agree that the QPQ review done is substandard. However, as best I can determine, the nominator only has three previous DYK self-nominations. For this one (number four), a QPQ is not required, so the fact that the one supplied wasn't adequate shouldn't prevent this nomination from being approved. A better review will certainly be required for the self-nomination after the next one. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing that out, BlueMoonset. I was wondering about that myself, but the QPQ checker no longer appears in the toolbox. Restoring Jakob's tick. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)