Template:Did you know nominations/Stay (Rihanna song)

Stay (Rihanna song)
Created/expanded by Tomica (talk), Calvin999 (talk). Nominated by Calvin999 (talk) at 13:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that according to Dan Martin for NME, the lyrical content of "Stay" provides an interesting viewpoint regarding her relationship with Chris Brown?


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Neutrality, copyvio, length, date of creation all fine; New Musical Express provides a great source for the hook, but it doesn't say anything about "interesting viewpont" so that claim fails to be properly referenced. As for the QPQ you still need to add one but and you are still one short as Template:Did you know nominations/Just a Fool needs one as well.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The hook does not show who's the performer of the song. As a result, it makes no sense. Please state that it is Rihanna's "Stay", not only "Stay". — ΛΧΣ  21™  19:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that according to Dan Martin for NME, the lyrical content of "Stay", a song performed by Rihanna, "puts a vulnerable spin" on her relationship with Chris Brown? AARON &bull; TALK   19:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I've never had to do QPQ when it's a joint nomination. AARON &bull; TALK   19:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The picture caption in the article still contains the "interesting viewpont" phrase. Maybe you are right with the QPQ but the only rule I could come up with is the Did you know 5. paragraph, which says that self-nominations require review by the nominator. I think since you also contributed to the article it qualifies as a self-nom.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  19:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed in the picture. Like I said, never had to do it in QPQ before when it's joint. I've done 35 DYKs, I know how it goes. AARON &bull; TALK   21:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I don't think a DYK-o-meter is a reasoning for interpretation of rules (for the record I'm at about 20), but I give this a green light and leave it to the editor who closes this. On a sidenote if the rule doesn't apply to joint noms then that's obviously the loophole of it. The only thing one has to do is ask a member of his wikiproject to do one edit and the article is edited by multiple wikipedians thus QPQ is avoided. Strange.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  22:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the sense that I've nominated enough to know lol, and nominated jointly before. It's not really a loophole because most people aren't honest in acknowledging the creator of the article. Most people don't include the nominator and therefore do a QPQ, so not really. And thanks. AARON &bull; TALK   22:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'm very sorry, but if you were one of the creators and you nominated the article, you are responsible for supplying a QPQ for the article. No ifs, ands, or buts. "Reviewing another editor's nomination is part of the nomination process for self-nominations." I've promoted dozens, if not hundreds, of multi-author articles to prep areas, and they've all had to satisfy QPQ if nominated by one of the article's authors; this is the first time I've heard of this supposed exemption. If you've not been required to do QPQs before, then you've lucked out and might want to think about doing some makeup reviews after you complete this one. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Meigs County Courthouse (Ohio) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg QPQ has been satisfied; ALT2 approved per Lajbi. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)