Template talk:Did you know nominations/List of India women Twenty20 International cricketers

Off-topic discussion moved from the discussion page

Vensatry, the second QPQ (Kangri Garpo) is not a review, rather, it's you asking whether the article may be reviewed. The answer is yes (it's not unreasonably late, there's only a small backlog, and it's only the nominator's second DYK), but you need to review it for your own nomination to proceed. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't abandoned the nomination, nor has it been marked for a re-review. Not sure what's your point here. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry, sorry if I was unclear. My point is that you still need to provide a full second review for your second QPQ to be complete, and for your nomination to proceed; since you asked for your nomination to be revisited, I just meant to let you know that something is still needed. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Is that a rule? If so please direct me to it. What if the nominator doesn't turn up at all? I'm asking this because it happened with my previous nomination (this was the QPQ nom); it took nearly six weeks for my nom to get into the main page. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry Don't worry, as far as I have seen, the nominator of your QPQ looks active. However, if the QPQ is not completed within one or two days, I would be giving you one of my QPQs to complete this DYK! Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry The rule you asked for is Rule 5: "For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ. The review must address all five criteria listed here." So far you have only checked for newness, or one of the five criteria. You need to additionally check for length (over 1,500 characters?), hook (checks out? inline citation?), within policy (neutral? verifiable? any copyvios?), and QPQ (if not provided, is one needed?).

In regards to your second question (what if the nominator stops responding?), even if they don't your own nomination will be fine. Your review counts from the moment you check all five criteria, not from the moment the nomination you checked is promoted or closed. For example, this review already counts as one made by Adityavagarwal, even though you have not yet completed the nomination. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry, I've finished the review for Kangri Garpo, and am donating it to your nomination. So you're all set. Marking as approved based on Adityavagarwal's review. In the future, please just note that even if you identify an issue with a nomination (especially a relatively minor one), a full review is still needed before it counts as a QPQ. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Usernameunique. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: I think you're misinterpreting the rule. Disqualifying a nomination on the grounds that it fails to meet any of the criteria certainly counts as a review. Rule #1 and #2 ("newness" and "size") have the topmost priority as far as DYKs are concerned − no they are not "minor" ones as you claim. Only after checking with these two criterion, we should go for the rest, which is secondary. The argument that you're making is relevant only in cases like this (Giants' interpretation is correct). It's somehow for this reason, we have {{subst:DYK?again}}, where a new reviewer is allowed to take over the nomination. And for the record, my prev QPQ got processed just a couple of days ago and is yet to get featured on the main page. In any case, like I said earlier, I haven't abandoned the review yet. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry, I don't want to needlessly belabor the point, or appear dismissive (apologies if I come across that way), but I don't think that such an interpretation is correct. The rule says that "The review must address all five criteria listed here." There are no qualifiers such as "The review must address all five criteria listed here, unless you find a problem in one of them." (If you disagree, please point out the qualifiers that you suggest are present.) This ensures that when an issue is addressed, the nomination has already been reviewed and can move forward—and does not get bogged down by the piecemeal identification of issues (which can happen otherwise). Though "newness" is important, were it all-important then Rule D9 would not exist. That rule by itself should direct a reviewer, upon noting that a review is only marginally late, to continue with the rest of the review. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Sigh, you don't get my point, do you? I seriously have no idea why you have quoted Rule D9 here. Does it even talk about "newness"? All that it talks about is the maintenance of Template:Did you know/Queue#Prep_areas. Second, even if we assume what you're saying is true (or is rather a "rule"), I have NOT repeat NOT abandoned the nomination. I HAVE clearly stated in the nom page that I am willing to give it an exemption. So, this clearly isn't a hit-and-run review. Frankly, you should NOT have reviewed my QPQ in the first place. May I request you to end the discussion as this is going nowhere? —Vensatry _(talk) 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, would you mind collapsing your comments/moving it to the talk page? —Vensatry _(talk) 15:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)