Template:Did you know nominations/Toebox

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 Yoninah (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Article has several tags; nominator has not worked on it in more than a month. If it is improved to GA, please renominate then.

Toebox

(

)

Toe box of a ballet shoe

... that most shoe toeboxes are too narrow, meaning that anyone buying a toebox that fits tends to have a loose heel? Source:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/108b/86467a149711f635e6583a352e928b2ab1b3.pdf (clinical practice guidelines)

Comment: Still working on this, as there is a huge body of medical lit to plow through and some historical/ fashion stuff. I've run out of my week deadline on nomination, but have a pile of notes and intend to edit this article substantially before it goes up. Hopefully I will also come up with a better hook.

Created by HLHJ (talk). Self-nominated at 01:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC).

Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Gott, der du warst und bist und bleibst donated by Evrik

Article is was created eight days ago. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 21:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Flunking an article that was nominated less than two hours later that it ought to have been seems unnecessarily harsh to me. A little leniency is a good thing, especially given the work that has gone into the article, and how close to the deadline the nomination was. I should point out to HLHJ that a QPQ review will be needed if the review is to progress, and the hook needs to have a bold link to the nominated article. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with BlueMoonset. --evrik ^(talk) 20:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Working on it... apologies for the delay. HLHJ (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I just donated a QPQ. --evrik ^(talk) 01:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

evrik ...hmmm how does one donate a "QPQ". Can you please elaborate? ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA:, it's the same process you saw on Storme Webber. :-) --evrik ^(talk) 16:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, evrik, that's very kind, but not needed. I could probably dig through the history and find a few, but I like doing QPQs. Separately, I'd like to hold this nomination while another editor finishes an illustration that would be useful, and I edit the article some more. HLHJ (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@HLHJ: Well, I've already donated the QPQ. If you like doing QPQ's I suggest you find some deserving articles and donate you work, maybe this on William Verbeck. As an aside, this should have been ready to go when you nominated it. As it is CAPTAIN MEDUSA flagged it for being late. If it's to be ready for being featured on the front page, do it now. Especially the unsourced statements. --evrik ^(talk) 16:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this needs work. --evrik ^(talk) 16:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed; I have a large file of notes, and will work on it in the new year. HLHJ (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@HLHJ: Per my comments on December 16, this should have been closer to finished when it was nominated. I'm giving this a no. Can you dinish it this week? Perhaps you should work on a GA nomination. --evrik ^(talk) 03:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)