Template:Did you know nominations/Stay (Rihanna song)

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: promoted by Allen3 talk 16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Stay (Rihanna song)[edit]

  • ... that according to Dan Martin for NME, the lyrical content of "Stay" provides an interesting viewpoint regarding her relationship with Chris Brown?

Created/expanded by Tomica (talk), Calvin999 (talk). Nominated by Calvin999 (talk) at 13:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Neutrality, copyvio, length, date of creation all fine; New Musical Express provides a great source for the hook, but it doesn't say anything about "interesting viewpont" so that claim fails to be properly referenced. As for the QPQ you still need to add one but and you are still one short as Template:Did you know nominations/Just a Fool needs one as well. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 19:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The hook does not show who's the performer of the song. As a result, it makes no sense. Please state that it is Rihanna's "Stay", not only "Stay". — ΛΧΣ21 19:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that according to Dan Martin for NME, the lyrical content of "Stay", a song performed by Rihanna, "puts a vulnerable spin" on her relationship with Chris Brown? AARONTALK 19:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, I've never had to do QPQ when it's a joint nomination. AARONTALK 19:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The picture caption in the article still contains the "interesting viewpont" phrase. Maybe you are right with the QPQ but the only rule I could come up with is the Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility_criteria 5. paragraph, which says that self-nominations require review by the nominator. I think since you also contributed to the article it qualifies as a self-nom. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 19:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed in the picture. Like I said, never had to do it in QPQ before when it's joint. I've done 35 DYKs, I know how it goes. AARONTALK 21:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think a DYK-o-meter is a reasoning for interpretation of rules (for the record I'm at about 20), but I give this a green light and leave it to the editor who closes this. On a sidenote if the rule doesn't apply to joint noms then that's obviously the loophole of it. The only thing one has to do is ask a member of his wikiproject to do one edit and the article is edited by multiple wikipedians thus QPQ is avoided. Strange. Lajbi Holla @ meCP 22:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, in the sense that I've nominated enough to know lol, and nominated jointly before. It's not really a loophole because most people aren't honest in acknowledging the creator of the article. Most people don't include the nominator and therefore do a QPQ, so not really. And thanks. AARONTALK 22:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm very sorry, but if you were one of the creators and you nominated the article, you are responsible for supplying a QPQ for the article. No ifs, ands, or buts. "Reviewing another editor's nomination is part of the nomination process for self-nominations." I've promoted dozens, if not hundreds, of multi-author articles to prep areas, and they've all had to satisfy QPQ if nominated by one of the article's authors; this is the first time I've heard of this supposed exemption. If you've not been required to do QPQs before, then you've lucked out and might want to think about doing some makeup reviews after you complete this one. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • QPQ has been satisfied; ALT2 approved per Lajbi. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)