Template:Did you know nominations/Gladiolus Amicitia


 * 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Article is being merged into another article and will no longer exist except as a redirect; closing nomination as unsuccessful.

Gladiolus Amicitia

 * ... that Gladiolus was redesigned during the development of Final Fantasy XV to look smarter?
 * ALT1: ... that Final Fantasy XV party member Gladiolus was redesigned during the development of the game to look more intellectual?
 * ALT2: ... that Gladiolus was redesigned during the development of Final Fantasy XV to look more intelligent?

Source:  Created by PanagiotisZois (talk). Self-nominated at 23:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Hook is cited and very interesting. Page is new enough and long enough. One eyeball issue, that I might take a crack at myself, is that some paragraphs on the article lack inline-citations. If someone wants to address that before me, by all means do. Other than that, the article is well-written and has no policy issues. The creator has not completed a QPQ but I have a ton of those credits and am willing to do away with one on their behalf. No CopyVio issues. I guess inline citations is the only issue. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I would also consider the alternate hook of "that Gladiolus was redesigned during the development of Final Fantasy XV to look more intelligent?". DaltonCastle (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. First of all, thank you :) . Second of all, maybe an alternative could be "that Final Fantasy XV party member Gladiolus was redesigned during development of the game to look more intelligent?" --PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also added an inline citation. It's not much but it's a start. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, great! Looking at the page now it looks a lot better. The one reason I have to await a more experienced editor to review is that, while I think sourcing is all good for an article about a fictional video game character, I don't know that all of it is. Hopefully somebody can clear this up. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the fact I haven't reviewed another nomination is the reason this DYK wasn't accepted? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it can take a while to get through the process -- there's often a backlog of a month or two. You just need to be patient, and help resolve any issues that are brought up. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

- Length, Date, Cite, QPQ exempt, and Earwigs check. Looking at the article, the sourcing appears fine. ALT1 has the best wording in my opinion (I tweaked it to more fully reflect the source) and therefore ALT1 is approved. Mifter (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Second opinion about sourcing needed, and also a check of the hooks, since it's unclear which have been approved and which not. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mifter, you just struck ALT2, which is the one you say you've approved. I think you meant to approve ALT1? If ALT1 is your preference, please update here as appropriate; also, for ALT1, I would suggest adding "the" before "development". BlueMoonset (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset - thanks for catching that, ALT1 is the one I intended to approve, I also added the "the". Mifter (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I came to move this to prep but find a "notability" tag has been added. This will need to be resolved before promotion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg There's also an active merge discussion; the nomination is on hold until it's settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I just closed the merge discussion as "merge" as there was clear consensus that the article did not have independent notability. Vanamonde (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)