Template:Did you know nominations/Death of a Salesman (1966 TV movie)

The following discussion 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Death of a Salesman (1966 TV movie)[edit]

(

)

... that Death of a Salesman, a 1966 television remake of Arthur Miller's 1949 play by the same name, won three Primetime Emmy Awards at the 19th Primetime Emmy Awards in 1967?

*Reviewed: All checks ok - new article:17/09/2012. Has been expanded five-fold since: 19/09/2012, review by: Geoffjw1978 ^T^L^C 08:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nom at 05:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

All checks ok - Size, Refs, Article follows WP:POLICY. See Output from Prose-size-stats, today, 23/09/2012

Document statistics:

File size: 60 kB

Prose size (including all HTML code): 7600 B

References (including all HTML code): 957 B

Wiki text: 10129 B

Prose size (text only): 4272 B (674 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 52 B

Review by: Geoffjw1978 ^T^L^C 08:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, are you done typing? The {{underconstruction}} tag is still there. --PFHLai (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not yet.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  - It shouldn't have been approved with that tag there. Secretlondon (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  - Apologies for that. I was trying to get it through before it was stale. I wonder what date it becomes too old to be included as a DyK. It seems worthy. (Today, as at 26th Sept, This one is dated 17th Sept and 17th is red on the T:DYK/Q Queue list). So I suspect it is stale and can't be promoted now. Just wondering. Geoffjw1978 ^T^L^C 22:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    - It remains very eligible, AFAIK. Sorry, I got distracted by another project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    - Red means "attention required here!" rather than "stop and abort" so please review TonyTheTiger's new additions to the wikipage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    - I've re-read it again, as requested, but the "underconstruction tag" is still there, so awaiting removal of that before promotion can get the go-ahead. Geoffjw1978 ^T^L^C 23:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
      - Sorry, I meant re-review when TonyTheTiger is done typing. It's still eligible for DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
        GOOD TO GO. Re-reviewed, checked press references. Tags have gone. To be a GA it would need some balance with a criticism section, but not necessary for DYK. The article just escapes advert as it has refs for all the hyperbole. Nice article, engaging hook. I can't promote it to a prep area myself because I did the original review. Geoffjw1978 ^T^L^C 07:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)