Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Annabelle (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cwmhiraeth (talk | contribs) at 06:18, 15 February 2017 (To Prep 4). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Annabelle (magazine)

[edit]
  • ... that Tamedia, the publishing company of the Swiss women's magazine, Annabelle, banned it from reporting critical political news in 2013?

Created by Egeymi (talk). Self-nominated at 14:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

  • - Length, Date, Copyvio Check, and Ref all check out. @Egeymi: Once QPQ is done the hook will be good to go. Mifter (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I have nine QPQs, you may check it. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Egeymi: I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any edits to review other DYK nominations in your contributions. Could you please link me to one of the QPQs that has not already been used? Thanks, Mifter (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Here But these are old, I am not sure that I should do more. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Egeymi, that list is prior DYK credits you have, not QPQ (quid pro quo) reviews, which are reviews that you have done of other people's DYK submissions. I checked those nine DYK credits on the list (from 2012 and 2013), and it turns out that five of those were nominated by someone else, and four of them were nominated by you. That means that this is your fifth DYK nomination in total, and thus does not require a QPQ review since we allow up to five freebies; any future nominations, however, will require you to submit a QPQ review. (Note to Mifter: whether a QPQ is required depends on the number of past nominations a person has done, whether of their own or someone else's article. Only nominations of all kinds are counted; if someone else nominated your article, it doesn't count toward your QPQ total. The rules on this changed a few years back; before then, only self-nominations counted.) BlueMoonset (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • - in that case we are good to go. I will also keep the nuance of the QPQ requirement in mind for the future (when I ran the QPQ check tool, I neglected to dig deeper to see if the authors credits were from their own noms or someone else nomming their article.) Mifter (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for information. As you stated if I have future nominations, I will submit it. Egeymi (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)