Template:Did you know nominations/Southwold lighthouse
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Southwold lighthouse edit
- ... that a fire broke out in Southwold lighthouse just six days after it opened in 1890?
- Comment: Expanded article. First time I've done this so I think it meets the criteria but any guidance would be appreciated. No article reviewed as DYK subs < 5.
- Reviewed: Missing
Created/expanded by Blue Square Thing (talk). Self nom at 09:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Sizes for hook and expansion are okay. Neutrality, copyvio (including pic) are fine. southwoldmuseum.org tells the story about the fire. Currently I see no problems with it apart from the QPQ. You have to review an article to get this nomination promoted. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, as I see no evidence that Blue Square Thing has ever had a DYK nomination appear on the main page, there is no QPQ requirement, a fact which is correctly noted in the Comment above. If a QPQ review had been needed, however, the tick should not have been given. Assuming a nomination passes everything except the QPQ, a ? icon is the appropriate one to use; never give an approval tick until everything is in order. As it is, given your review, this is good to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- That is correct BlueMoonset, it's my first DYK. I thought it was the case that I didn't need to review in that case - thanks for your help and Lajbi for the initial review as well. Now that I understand the sorts of criteria for inclusion a bit better I'll see if I can't go an review at least one in the next couple of days. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- We're always happy to have someone start reviewing before they're required to do so: thanks for wanting to give it a try before you've submitted your first five. For your first couple of reviews, you might want to note that fact, so people can take a look to make sure nothing was missed. I did so when I started, and had missed one of the criteria in an early review; fortunately, an experienced reviewer noted the issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)