Template:Did you know nominations/Carlisle Best


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Carlisle Best

 * ... that international cricketer Carlisle Best would "aggravate bowlers" by commentating on himself while batting? (source)
 * Reviewed: Siddiqullah Chowdhury

5x expanded by Dweller (talk) and The Rambling Man (talk). Nominated by Dweller (talk) at 08:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough - expansion started on 12 July. Long enough - expanded to 4829 characters from 497 characters. Hook is interesting and supported by . Article is written in a neutral tone and no copyvio detected. QPQ also done, so this is GTG. Dee  03  17:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The quid pro quo (QPQ) review was not adequate, as it wasn't a complete review of the nomination. It gave an "oppose"—DYK doesn't use !votes or things like opposes, just the icons listed above the edit window (one per review)—and only discussed the prose, not any of the other DYK criteria, all of which must be checked. Another reviewer had to do a complete review of this nomination, covering things like age, size, neutrality, close paraphrasing, hook fact and other sourcing, etc. (I was also puzzled by the supposed requirement for a "professional" level of prose, which is a Featured Article requirement, not a DYK. The prose must be adequate, which this clearly was not, but certainly not professional.) Please supply a complete review for your QPQ. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks,. . OK, so a few things on the QPQ. First, I think I'm probably exempt, as I doubt I've got more than 1 or maybe 2 DYKs behind me. Second, the rules are silly, because I've provided half a dozen useful, detailed, pertinent comments on DYKs yesterday and today in areas where I can give value, but as I have no expertise on technicalities of the process asking me to opine on them is going to give you poor reviews, especially on the prose expansion which frankly defeats my tech abilities (see my pleading for help on User talk:The Rambling Man re this nom). Sorry about opposing - that's what you get from telling newbies they have to engage with a complex system they don't know or understand. The "professional prose" point stuns me. I cannot believe that in your overly complicated and very offputting ruleset there is no mention whatsoever about the quality of written article. Seemingly, an article in pidgin English would sail through and appear on Main page, to Wikipedia's detriment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe the nominator is exempt from QPQ as they have only 4 DYK credits against their name according to the QPQ check tool. Dee  03  14:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked through Dweller's talk page history, and found five DYKs from 2009 and 2011 that might not show up in the (unfortunately imperfect) QPQ check tool: John Maynard (cricketer), Brumbrella, Benson (fish), Glossary of association football terms, and Daddles. So a QPQ would seem to be required on that basis. (It's hard to tell, because before the current automated process took place, there's no indication of whether it was a single or group nomination.) However, neither Manot Cave nor Alf Ramsey would count toward QPQ exemption here, because both were nominated by The Rambling Man, and are counted in his tally. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Little wonder this project is failing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't even understand if that means I do or don't need to do it now. If it pleases you I'll do my best at [not screwing up] a complete review when I'm next onwiki but honestly this is a crap system. You're far better using me to copyedit, which I do well, than using tools I can't fathom and following arcane rules I don't know... and don't agree with. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now reviewed this, too Template:Did you know nominations/Crimetown. I'll not bother nominating another DYK, this process is just so offputting. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)