Template:Did you know nominations/Martine van Hamel


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Martine van Hamel

 * ... that at the third biennial 1966 Varna International Ballet Competition, the most prestigious ballet competition in the world, Martine van Hamel won a gold medal?
 * Source: "Martine van Hamel added to the lustre of this period by winning the gold medal... at the 1966 International Ballet Competition in Varna -Passion to Dance: The National Ballet of Canada
 * Source: International Ballet Competitions, one of the world’s most prestigious dance competitions, open to both male and female dancers of all countries, and much like the Olympic Games in purpose. The first International Ballet Competitions were held in Varna, Bulg., in July 1964. -Encyclopædia Britannica
 * ALT1 ... that at the 1966 Varna International Ballet Competition, one of the most prestigious dance competitions in the world, Martine van Hamel won a gold medal?


 * Reviewed: Revival (comics)

Created by Mkdw (talk). Self-nominated at 22:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. I have struck the original hook and abbreviated it to ALT1. (, you have quoted the source and yet still made the claim in the hook that this is the most prestigious ballet competition in the world. Please be more careful next time.) The ALT1 hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I did not detect any policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I should have listed all the sources used to support the statement in the article here at the DYK nomination rather than only two. Adding sources to the nomination page is new process here at DYK; the DYK criteria requires the hook appear in the article and for it to be cited. The fourth citation (in the article) made the claim "the most prestigious". While the Encyclopædia Britannica takes a less firm position on calling it "one of the most prestigious", based upon the available material, I contend that it's the predominantly held position that the competition is "the most prestigious". I have included other sources that have made this claim such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Winnipeg Free Press. Please review these sources (in the article). The publications themselves are decades apart and belong in a long succession of other articles that make the same claim. More sources exist but once there are six reliable sources for a sentence (and arguably even beyond three or four) we enter the territory of WP:BOMBARD. If it is possible, would you be willing to reconsider the original hook? Mkdw talk 16:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg OK. User:Mkdw has added some extra citations, some of which state that this is the most prestigious ballet competition in the world, so I will approve both ALT0 and ALT1. I will leave it to the promoter to decide which hook to use. I have changed ALT0 to "a gold medal" however as there are a number of categories each with its own gold medal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cwmhiraeth. As the nominator, I do prefer ALT0 but also that it's the most accurate in terms of the reliable sources. Mkdw talk 18:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The QPQ submitted by the nominator is not a full review; it seems to be relying on the DYK bot instead of explicitly confirming that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Yoninah (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I manually reviewed the criteria. I guess I have to ask you if you've actually looked at the bot generated review and then compared it against my own? I think if you had done this before making the claim it "wasn't a full review" and stating it "[relies] on a DYK bot", you would see by due diligence, nothing was used from the bot generated review. Moreover, my review looks nothing like the bot review other than the mere fact it uses checkmarks which I hope is not the basis of your assumptions. Surely you wouldn't make such an negative accusatory statement about another editor's work on so little investigation. The bot issue aside, you also state my review explicitly does not state it meets the five main DYK criteria. I have to contest that accusation as well. Here's a breakdown of my review against the criteria points. I've also added what the bot produced as a comparison.
 * Criteria 1: New or Expanded
 * Bot:
 * My review:
 * Please note that literally none of the data generated by the bot was used.
 * Criteria 2: Long Enough
 * Bot:
 * My review:
 * Please note again that literally none of the data generated by the bot was used.
 * Criteria 3: Cited
 * Bot:
 * My review:
 * Criteria 4: Within Policy
 * Bot:
 * My review:
 * Criteria 5: Review requirement
 * They were exempt so I did not in the open state that there was nothing to check.
 * So I'd appreciate further clarification if you did compare my review against that of the bot and where else you felt my review fell short of "explicitly confirming that the five main DYK criteria" because I felt it was quite clear and laid out. Thank you,  Mkdw talk 14:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg wow, that's interesting. I looked at the QPQ a few times and all I saw was the same light-colored markings that the DYK bot usually makes, which led me to assume the review was done by the bot. I'm very sorry. I see now that the whole review is indeed yours, and I have no cause for complaint. I'm sorry for offending you. Restoring tick per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So I'd appreciate further clarification if you did compare my review against that of the bot and where else you felt my review fell short of "explicitly confirming that the five main DYK criteria" because I felt it was quite clear and laid out. Thank you,  Mkdw talk 14:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg wow, that's interesting. I looked at the QPQ a few times and all I saw was the same light-colored markings that the DYK bot usually makes, which led me to assume the review was done by the bot. I'm very sorry. I see now that the whole review is indeed yours, and I have no cause for complaint. I'm sorry for offending you. Restoring tick per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)