Template:Did you know nominations/Government Hooker

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 PumpkinSky talk 21:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Government Hooker[edit]


Created/expanded by DAP388 (talk). Self nom at 19:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Article was nominated 23 June 2012. Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 38 edits ago on June 9, 2012. Article has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (14 days) . Article is not new enough and expanded enough at the time of nomination. Can't see a case for WP:IAR here. --LauraHale (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Needs a complete review. --George Ho (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the previous versions of the article before DAP388's—all reverted to redirects within 24 hours, and which included huge chunks of quoted material well beyond fair use such that it would be ineligible for counting in a DYK to begin with—should not be counted. Therefore, with 7903 prose characters according to DYKcheck, it passes the length requirement. Article appears to be neutral and cites sources; spot check finds no copyvio or close paraphrasing. Hook is relatively interesting (corrected it to use DJ White Shadow's full name), and source referenced with inline citation (after quote that follows sentence, which seems good enough). However, the image accompanying this nomination does not appear in the article, and is thus ineligible. Either it needs to be deleted from this nomination or added to the article; I'd frankly recommend deleting it. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on BlueMoonset's review and that the image is no longer in the hook and the other copyrights on images look okay, good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)