Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Lachlan


 * 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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Lachlan

 * ... that educationist Elizabeth Lachlan was asked to be governess for Queen Victoria as a child?


 * ALT1 ... that educationist Elizabeth Lachlan was asked to be Queen Victoria's governess?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Star Trek: Phase II

Created by Worm That Turned (talk) and Staceydolxx (talk). Nominated by Worm That Turned (talk) at 16:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Fresh and long enough! QPQ done and not too closely paraphrased. Unfortunately, there appear to be no photographs of Lachlan available online. Having taken a look at the ODNB's article about her, I can tell there is room for improvement, i.e. expansion, but nothing to prevent this article from appearing on the main page. Surtsicna (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Surtsicna, I've added an ALT1, because "as a child" is redundant, and creates an ambiguity. Edwardx (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks for the improvement :) Thanks for the review too! WormTT(talk) 23:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should say "the future Queen Victoria". She ascended the throne at the age of 18. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg done and no copyvio. Long enough. Interesting and citable. All else is good. As per a decision in ANI, this nom requires two reviews. LavaBaron (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * LavaBaron, this has ALREADY been reviewed, I merely added an ALT1. Edwardx (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I know. I reviewed it a second time as per recently established requirements. Please direct all complaints to the Discussion page. LavaBaron (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not quite right is it LavaBaron. I'll take this up on your talk page. WormTT(talk) 09:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that the reasoning was that other people had to check the reviews of LavaBaron, not the other way round. This seems ridiculous. Edwardx (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing stopping this nomination from being promoted sans a second review by me, however, if I choose to make a second review of a nomination then that review becomes fulfillment of a requirement that I make two reviews. Gatoclass has recently objected to the current iteration of these restrictions, also, though I think for different reasons. I have no opinion either way, and am simply describing the status quo of the procedures here to you as a courtesy. LavaBaron (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are always welcome to bring issues to my Talk page, Worm That Turned, however, to ensure maximum transparency, I will just note here that the requirements established by Deryck Chan clearly state "one of the reviews needs to be a fresh review; the other can just be "I agree [because...]" or "I disagree because...". As per these requirements, the second review threshold was activated by me in this nomination in fulfillment of the ANI decision, as previously described by me above (posting an announcement that a second review is required per ANI is also a requirement of the ANI decision). LavaBaron (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, but that's not what you said. You didn't say you agree because, you said "this nom requires two reviews". That's different, as I've explained at your talk page. Assuming this was just a miscommunication I expect we can let it be here then. WormTT(talk) 10:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All of my required 50% QPQ re-reviews contain boilerplate text to the effect of "this nom requires two reviews". It is an absolute requirement I announce that all nominations reviewed by me require two reviews, no exception has been granted (of which I'm aware) in the case where one of the two reviews was already completed before my review. As my restrictions were imposed on me for an alleged failure to follow procedures precisely, you'll appreciate if I am unwilling to rely on casual or "common sense" interpretations - that's what got me into this mess. Assurance that I exhibit perfect interpretation of policies is the only possibility of future relief I have from the current restrictions. And no, this is not me being WP:POINTy, this is a reasonable precaution that anyone in my situation would take.
 * My reviews have been reviewed by the sanctioning admin who lauded me for correct implementation and, while no one has expressed confusion up to this point, if you feel it is confusing and that people are likely to construe the boilerplate means "two reviews following the last review" instead of "two reviews total", I would be happy to modify this language as per your direction. I would just ask you place the modification language on my Talk page or something as there have been so many overlapping corollaries and amendments added to these restrictions in various locations across the Wikisphere that it is getting difficult to track them all, which is undoubtedly part of the issue. LavaBaron (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)