Template:Did you know nominations/The Dance of Dragons


 * 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) 23:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Persistent failure by nominator to submit an adequate QPQ.

The Dance of Dragons

 * ... that in the Game of Thrones episode "The Dance of Dragons", watching Dany soar about the stadium on Drogon is an iconic image?
 * ALT1: ... that the Game of Thrones episode "The Dance of Dragons" is the second lowest rated episode since season four by Rotten Tomatoes?
 * ALT2: ... that it is unclear how the death of Shireen Baratheon in the Game of Thrones episode "The Dance of Dragons" would affect future books?

5x expanded by IdenticalHetero (talk). Nominated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk) at 21:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC).


 * "watching Dany soar about the stadium on Drogon is an iconic image" needs to be in quotes in that hook; but I'd go for an ALT rather than repeat the poor phrasing of the review (Oooohh get me, bitching about some critic's writing yet no alternative hook on offer). Belle (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg No QPQ has been supplied, though the nomination has been active for over three weeks. Also, there are grammatical issues with ALT1, and I'm not entirely sure why Rotten Tomatoes is such a big deal. The fascinating thing to me is that the episode contains material from a future novel in Martin's series: the event is being seen before it has been published; you might want to consider a hook based on that fact, though it will require an additional inline source citation after the sentence containing that fact. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * New hook. QPQ pending later today. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * QPQ:Mayfly. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The QPQ is not a sufficient review per DYK Reviewing guide, and is also ineligible because the reviewer approved his own alt hook. Yoninah (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was unable to do this because I was caught up with some issues. I will try to do this before this day ends but I cannot promise anything. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg It has been over a week since the above and no new QPQ has been supplied, despite edits elsewhere on Wikipedia since then. As it has also been three weeks since the nominator was told that the QPQ was inadequate and ineligible, and similar issues have plagued earlier nominations, I'm marking this for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg -QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Rapid Run (Buffalo Creek)
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Panther Run
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cantata misericordium. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Shhhhwwww!!, not one of these three reviews is an adequate QPQ, and partial reviews are not combinable. You have failed to check the Within policy criteria on all three of them (neutrality, article sourcing, and copyvio/close paraphrasing), failed to check the image on one of them, and failed to check anything but the hook on the third. This just isn't acceptable. Unless a complete review—and you need to mention everything you checked and the result—is submitted soon, the nomination will not succeed. I'm sorry, but it's time for you to either get this right or stop submitting to DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg - Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Paolo Andreani. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg In the interest of moving this along, I reviewed the review and found it reasonably thorough except that an element of the hook fact did not match the cited text. The article names one city for the event while the hook names another. It's possible these are two names for the same place but there's no indication of this in the nominated article, the hook, or the article for the city named in the hook. I've left a note on the talk page of the original nominator who can clear this up with almost no effort. But it's a significant failure in the review process. - Dravecky (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: after a couple of days of back and forth, Paolo Andreani is now ready for its time on the front page. Disappointingly, Shhhhwwww!! did not participate in the discussion after the initial faulty review. - Dravecky (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So, Dravecky, do we request yet another QPQ from Shhhhwwww!!, given the failure here, do we let it slide, or do we close the nomination due to persistent QPQ problems? I'll let you decide. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm an old softie and everybody makes an occasional mistake in a review. If Paolo Andreani was the first attempt at QPQ, I'd have noted the mistake as a cautionary tale and this would be on its way, but it's the fifth attempt at a QPQ for this article alone and the first four were abysmal. People need to learn the process and improvement should be praised but this has been dragged out for so long, including several weeks of complete abandonment by the nominator, and so many chances given that this fifth failure nearly two months after the article was nominated makes my decision clear: Symbol delete vote.svg - Dravecky (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, Dravecky. I'm rejecting the nomination per your final review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)