Template:Did you know nominations/Sorby Research Institute


 * 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 sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorby Research Institute

 * ... that volunteers at the Sorby Research Institute were made to wear the dirty underpants of scabies sufferers?


 * Reviewed: Albert Downing

Created by 110.20.130.141 (talk) and Spinningspark. Nominated by Spinningspark (talk) at 09:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC).


 * I was going to go with "did you know that very few of the volunteers at the Sorby Research Institute were women, which may explain why a diet of biscuits and chocolate was voted the most unpleasant experiment?", but I realised I would get into deep doo-doo if I wrote something like that anywhere on Wikipedia. Oops, I've already pressed save :) SpinningSpark 09:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Article long enough, recently moved to mainspace. Neutral, verifiable, no copyvios (aside from a false positive from using the supplied reference), no close paraphrasing revealed in spot checks. Hook short enough, very interesting (probably a good candidate for the final slot), and cited in-line. Only a partial QPQ provided; please supply a QPQ in which you address all points of the DYK criteria. I'll respond at the QPQ you provided with which criteria still need reviewing, if you want to just finish that one out. ~ RobTalk 02:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I reviewed the article against all of the criteria. SpinningSpark 12:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Sorry, there was a bit of a mix-up because I looked at your diff and thought that review was still pending. What I wrote there, and then reverted when I was made aware that it had already been promoted, was that your QPQ did not cover the following points: neutral, verifiable beyond the hook, close paraphrasing. Basically the "in policy" part, other than blatant copyvios. You may well have looked for those things when reviewing, but without them written out in the review, it makes it much more difficult for the prep builders to put together hook sets, as we have to double-check all the criteria not listed in the review. Because the hook's already been promoted, I'll accept this QPQ, but please be careful in the future to at least briefly mention each of the "in policy" criteria when reviewing. Sorry again about any confusion caused by my mistake at the QPQ nom (having to revert my explanation and all). ~ RobTalk 12:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since when has it been a requirement to write an essay in DYK reviews? That's not even in the unofficial rules. SpinningSpark 16:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Essay? No. A quick list of what you reviewed? Yes. It's the only way to differentiate a review that is complete and a review that is partial, and the reviewing guide does say to be thorough. ~ RobTalk 16:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me rephrase that then. Since when has it been a requirement to write a quick list of what you reviewed? That's not even in the unofficial rules.  Neither is the phrase "be thorough" by the way. And why did you add my name to the page creator credits without consulting me first? Just so you could give me a hard time over QPQ by the look of it. SpinningSpark</b> 21:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you're a creator on the page is irrelevant to the QPQ, as full QPQs are required for all nominations, not just self-nominations. I added you because you did the majority of the work to bring it up to DYK quality, and you deserve the credit. I can remove you from the credit if you'd like, but I didn't imagine that giving you recognition for your work would be controversial. There is not a written rule that states "you must actually complete a full review", but common sense dictates it, and no amount of wiki-lawyering is likely to allow a partial review to count for QPQ. The QPQ requirement is intended to reduce the backlog. In a review like the one you completed, the prep builder must use their own time to review every single criteria you did not. Your review is indistinguishable from one that is not complete, if you are saying that you reviewed those criteria and didn't write them down, and so I'm treating it as one. Note that I've already approved your QPQ, since a prep builder has already picked up the slack. I just let you know that it's possible a partial review won't be accepted in the future. ~ RobTalk 02:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)