Talk:Jerry Jumonville
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Desertarun in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from Jerry Jumonville appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 June 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Sources that can be used
editDid you know nomination
edit- 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 Desertarun (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
( )
Jerry Jumonville
- ... that saxophonist Jerry Jumonville was usually part of any band featured in the 1970s television series Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley?
- Reviewed: Fredericka Martin
5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC).
- Hi SL93, nice work saving this from an unsourced sub-stub; review follow: more than 5x expansion from 31 May, article well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't spot any overly close paraphrasing; hook is interesting, mentioned in the article and backed up by source cited; image checks out back to Flickr under a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license (not sure why the crop is dual licensed with 4.0, but 2.0 is sufficient); a QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dumelow Thanks for the review. Can you add an approval template so this can appear under the approved nominations? SL93 (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Doh, of course - Dumelow (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi SL93, nice work saving this from an unsourced sub-stub; review follow: more than 5x expansion from 31 May, article well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't spot any overly close paraphrasing; hook is interesting, mentioned in the article and backed up by source cited; image checks out back to Flickr under a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license (not sure why the crop is dual licensed with 4.0, but 2.0 is sufficient); a QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
