Template:Did you know nominations/What Are You Waiting For? (song)
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Although the nomination form was created on July 20, the nomination process wasn't completed until the transcluded nomination was added to the nominations page on September 14, over seven weeks later. On top of that, the nominated article was about 1200 prose characters when nominated on July 20
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
What Are You Waiting For? (song) edit
- ... that What Are You Waiting For? "makes you want a girlie holiday, like, right now"?
Moved to mainspace by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 23:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
Although the nomination form was created on July 20, the nomination process wasn't completed until the transcluded nomination was added to the nominations page on September 14, over seven weeks later. That's over six weeks late, far too long. On top of that, the nominated article was about 1200 prose characters when nominated on July 20 (once you exclude the overlong quote, which I've just put into a blockquote), and stayed that way for weeks. Another difficulty is that the article had twice been reverted to a redirect before this third version was nominated (on July 15 and earlier on July 20), but this "new" version of the article reuses portions of the reverted versions, so the nomination would need to be treated more like an expansion—with that overlong quote excluded it no longer hits 5x according to DYKcheck. I think, under the circumstances, this cannot be accepted now, but it could easily be resubmitted once it is listed as a Good Article. (Note: the quote in the hook has an internal "[sic]" in the article, so it couldn't have been used as is anyway.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
