Template:Did you know nominations/2015 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championship


 * 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 15:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championship, IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championship

 * ... that the 2015 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championship became the first tournament in its 30-year history to run on artificial turf?
 * Comment: Will prefer this to be posted on its opening day. October 3—10 (2015 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championship)



Created by Donnie Park (talk). Self-nominated at 13:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg A QPQ is needed for this nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviewed: One (Ed Sheeran song) (here). Donnie Park (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that some of the phrasing here is too close to the sources. For example, "that was originally built for the warm-up race but was left out as JMRCA did not like the size of it" in the 2015 article is quite similar to "which was built for the Warm-up race but left out as the JMRCA didn’t like the size of it". (I'll also note that it was the poor grammar in the hook which originally drew my attention - this will need fixing before repromotion). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg These two articles are new enough and long enough. The hook fact has an inline citation to a reliable source. The hook is interesting, the articles are neutral and I detected no policy issues. Theoretically, a two article hook needs two QPQs, but this nomination has been waiting long enough so I will donate one of my extra reviews. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late reply but please have a look and see what do you think of the shortened edit, in addition to the re-amended hook (to change it to a recently past tense (as it completed on Saturday)) and again apologies for the wait. Donnie Park (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On a quick look, the hook definitely needs copy-editing before repromotion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a small bit of editing on the hook but please do let me know what else do I need to change as problem is that I don't consider myself to be that great at grammar. Donnie Park (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there are two remaining problems with the hook. One is easy to fix: "30 year history" should be "30-year history". The other is more complicated: "became the first in it's" needs rewording. At minimum "it's" should be "its", but I think more significant changes would make it read much more smoothly and clearly. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the small changes (that I always thought was okay) as advised, see how that goes. Donnie Park (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, waiting from a response from you as I heard nothing from almost 48 hours, what else is needed to be done? Donnie Park (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What is going to happen as this is sitting there unpromoted for weeks and not had a feedback yet. Donnie Park (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Donnie, above I requested a re-review to see whether the article is now good to go. Hopefully someone will be by to take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Donnie Park (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have begun a fresh review of this nomination. Both articles still need some copy-editing, but IMO it's not so severe as to prevent either article from proceeding to prep. Once my reviewing duties are discharged I may even copy-edit the articles myself.
 * As noted, both articles are new enough, and they remain long enough after intervening edits. Neutrality is OK.
 * Spot checking of both articles against their sources revealed no close paraphrasing. Nice work cleaning that up!
 * Symbol possible vote.svg It seems edits have been made to one or both articles so that the hook fact is no longer cited in either article. It's mentioned in a single sentence only in the lead sections of the articles, not in the body of either one, and the closest citation is in the sentence following the one stating that "The event was best known for its decision to be run on artificial turf for the first time, ending a tradition of dirt tracks in its entire 30-year history" in the 2015 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championship article. For DYK purposes, the sentence stating a hook fact must have its own citation; a citation at the end of the paragraph is not sufficient. The sentences with citations should be in a section of the body of each article, rather than the lead, because there should not be any information in the lead that isn't also present in the body.
 * Other assertions of fact appear in the lead sections that are not repeated in the body of the article, and are also uncited; these need to be either repeated in the body of the article and cited properly, or removed. Examples: "Spencer Rivkin, who at the age of 16, became the youngest driver to win the 1:10 off-road race" and "Masami Hirosaka of Japan, an employee of Yokomo, the distributor of Associated in its native country, hold the record with three wins."
 * I also noticed that "... that the 2015 IFMAR 1:10 Electric Off-Road World Championship became the first tournament in its 30-year history to run on artificial turf?" would be better grammatically than the wording you currently have ("time"). I hope that suggesting such a minor correction hasn't made me ineligible to review the hook, but I'm pinging for her opinion. — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 02:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would make you ineligible, no. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * GrammarFascist, I agree with Nikkimaria in that I don't think that changing "time" to "tournament" would render you ineligible to continue your review here. However, I think you're adding a GA-level requirement here in saying that to pass as a DYK, facts in the lead need to be added to the body. While this is certainly desirable in articles on Wikipedia (as per WP:LEAD), it has never been a requirement at DYK—indeed, some articles that pass DYK are all lead and no body. If facts appear in the lead but not in the body, then the lead needs have inline citations at the level of the rest of the article, and hook facts need to be cited by the end of the sentence in which they appear, so if the only place a fact does show up is in the lead, then the citation needs to be there. (If it is cited by the end of the sentence in the body, it doesn't also need to be cited in the lead per WP:LEAD.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, ; I apologize for being overzealous. It would be ideal for the information to be in the body of the article instead of just in the lead, but I'll pass the nomination so long as the hook fact is cited by the end of the relevant sentence(s). Thank you for your guidance as usual., the ball is in your court. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 06:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim that Rivkin is the youngest to win is in fact from [ https://youtu.be/gJVEBOHfKTg?t=7h54m22s a live commentary], later was blanked out (possibly for copyright reason), I'm not sure if that can be used but I tried to use it as a source but Wikipedia won't let me. Other changes I made was the addition of more sources for the results table and trimmed some bits off. See what do you think. I don't mind GA level edit. Donnie Park (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never done a GA review and don't consider myself qualified to do one, but I can tell you that the articles would need considerable work to bring them up to GA status. That said, I'm willing to help you improve the articles, both by copy-editing and by pointing out areas that need improvement but that I don't have the background knowledge to fix myself, once my review of this DYK nomination is complete. I appreciate your citing the source for Rivkin, which doesn't seem to have any copyright issues (though it would be better if the citation wasn't a bare URL).
 * The main issue, however, remains that the hook facts — that the tournament was run on artificial turf, and that this was the first time in the 30-year history of the event that that happened — need to be cited no later than the end of a sentence in which each fact appears. Ideal sentences to add such citations to would be these two:
 * "The event was best known for its decision to be run on artificial turf for the first time, ending a tradition of dirt tracks in its entire 30-year history, a decision that have not been met without controversy."
 * "All the world championships took place on dirt or clay tracks until 2015 when the decision was made to run controversially on artificial turf."
 * The hook is short enough, neutral, and interesting, so once those facts are cited (either in the lead, where they are, or after being added to the body), this nomination can finally proceed. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I had noticed that the line " }} " had gone missing from the bottom of this nomination and copied it from another nomination, but a spare }} is now displaying; can you fix this and/or explain what went wrong? — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 13:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * GrammarFascist, the "Please do not" line got separated from the closing braces back on October 13, and both ended up mixed in among the comments above. I've put them back together and restored them below in place of your addition. Note that the longer version of the line with the additional before the final two braces is only used when there's an image in the nomination; it keeps the image from running past the end of the template and into the next on the nominations page. I've nowikied the braces you put in the middle of your post, since those seem to be the cause of the spare braces after my fix. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies that I had to do other things due to days ago, I AfD somebody's article, now I had to deal with this subject's hate campaign via social media and his attempt to persuade Jimmy Wales to have me banned and the AfD decision reversed, therefore I've not had time to get this done. I'll get this done as I can as long as this so-called "anti-bullying" activist doesn't harass me again. Donnie Park (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I ought to've known better than to leave those brackets un-nowikied; thanks for explaining about the distinction between the standard and nomination-with-image versions of the line, though, it never would've occurred to me that there would be a difference.
 * I think this nomination is very close to being ready. I see from your talk page that you are taking a Wiki-break; I hope you return within a short enough time that the review can be wrapped up. Since I've become involved in the situation you made mention of in your comment above, I will save you from having to ask me to recuse myself from completing the review, and offer to recuse myself without any prompting. Please don't think I don't want to continue, or that I doubt your ability to assume good faith in regard to me. I will happily complete my review of this nomination if you want me to, and I believe I can do so impartially. But I felt I should make the offer of recusal. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 02:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delays as I wanted to get this wrapped up but it was caused by all this situation this Healey person caused and had to spend time writing back dealing with this Healey person as I lost my first draft due that my browser crashing but I am not prepared to let him walk over me as he think he is going to neither am I going to be intimidated by his threat of lawsuit which he also said on twitter before. Going back to where I left off, fortunately I have managed to find a single source for both which I hope have proved useful. See what do you think. Donnie Park (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent work finding a single source that covers all the facts asserted in the hook, . That source is cited appropriately enough in both articles. I see that you listed one QPQ review (of the article One (Ed Sheeran song)&thinsp;); however, as this is a double nomination, you need to do two QPQ reviews for it. Sorry that wasn't made clearer earlier, and that I didn't notice it was an issue sooner. But another QPQ is all that remains to be done. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 10:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the previous admin allowed it to pass as he said somewhere above because of the length of time it had been left unreviewed. - Reviewed: Surface Book (here). Donnie Park (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay,, I'll AGF that you're going to stay with that review until it's complete or the nomination is scuttled. And with that, this double DYK is GTG! Thank you for contributing these two articles; I had never heard of RC racing as a sport, and it was interesting to read about. I trust you won't take it amiss if I now do some copy-editing to the articles, as I mentioned wanting to do days ago. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 13:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will agree to stay AGF now I calmed myself down. Donnie Park (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and this Kevin is not showing any signs of backing down now I already apologized for making that threat though not intended to him and posting his Great Gatsby taunts, so are you going to tell him to back down on twitter as this is in a poor faith. Donnie Park (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to think he has even seen the apology yet, but again, let's keep that issue off unrelated pages. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 15:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)