Template:Did you know nominations/Elector Under Will of Oliver Smith


 * 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) 06:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Elector Under Will of Oliver Smith

 * ... that "Elector Under Will of Oliver Smith" is the title of an elected official in some towns in Massachusetts?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Lachlan & Template:Did you know nominations/Maryam Mirzakhani
 * Comment:

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 03:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol unsupport vote-green.svg [1 of 2] New enough and long enough with an interesting hook and nice complementary images. I didn't see any policy issues looking at the hook or the sources it cites. Spot checks reveal no copyvio. It looks good to me and can be approved with a confirming second review. Raymie (t • c) 07:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * LavaBaron needs to provide one more QPQ as they have provided two confirmatory QPQs when their ANI restriction is that at least one must be a fresh review. Cowlibob (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Respectfully, Cowlibob is incorrect as the restriction is now rescinded. This can now proceed to a second review. LavaBaron (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Cowlibob was correct on August 13 and is correct now that the restriction was rescinded four minutes before LavaBaron's above post. The restriction was that LavaBaron had to provide a second review, which could be confirming, but the first could not be. The normal QPQ requirement for DYK is of a single full review of an article that needs a new review. In both of the submitted reviews above, the nomination had been given a tick or an X before LavaBaron's review doing likewise, so neither can count as a QPQ here. Now that the restriction has been lifted, LavaBaron only needs to submit a single full QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I find the hook interesting and notable, and it is correctly formatted. The article is new enough, of sufficient length, has no neutrality issues, is properly cited, and does not violate policy. I support it.  Ergo Sum  18:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The issue here remains the QPQ. While a second review has been provided, the QPQ issue remains unsettled. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's done here Template:Did you know nominations/Roman Tmetuchl. Promoters: this one is GTG. LavaBaron (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As a nominator, you don't decide when a DYK has been approved. Please wait for the reviewers to acknowledge the QPQ as being adequate.Cowlibob (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)