This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Overall: Great hooks! I think ALT1 and ALT2 are most interesting, though I recommend removing "the The Flash episode" from each for concision/more of a surprising effect. I am approving ALT2 as properly cited as-is. The "two years" claim in ALT1 isn't entirely verified by the currently cited source, but [1] (from the article) does verify it, so I'll say that's also approved.
I am requesting another reviewer take a look at this, since this is my first DYK review. By the way, OlifanofmrTennant, you are free to dispense commas more liberally throughout your (article) prose, which I have done for you here :) Toadspike[Talk]18:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giving a second review as requested above. Verifying that the nomination was done on time, the article was long enough, and is free of close paraphrasing. The done QPQ, however, is slightly incomplete. OlifanofmrTennant forgot to also check for the article's newness (according to DYK requirements) and length. She also forgot to verify the hook and to check if it was cited inline. Given the issues, I would suggest replacing the provided QPQ with a more complete review of another article. More pressingly for this nomination, however, is the sentence verifying ALT2 (the only hook I'd personally approve) lacks a footnote: the relevant footnote is instead located in the next sentence. The ref has to be duplicated for DYK verification purposes. Otherwise, Toadspike did a pretty good job for a first review and I hope he takes the above second review for tips in their future reviews. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please make it clear in the original review, making sure to check all the DYK criteria listed in WP:DYKRI. Regarding Thomas (goose), the provided QPQ did not check for article length, only newness, so that has to be corrected for that QPQ to count as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great hooks! I think ALT1 and ALT2 are most interesting, though I recommend removing "the The Flash episode" from each for concision/more of a surprising effect. I am approving ALT2 as properly cited as-is. The "two years" claim in ALT1 isn't entirely verified by the currently cited source, but [1] (from the article) does verify it, so I'll say that's also approved.
Giving a second review as requested above. Verifying that the nomination was done on time, the article was long enough, and is free of close paraphrasing. The done QPQ, however, is slightly incomplete. OlifanofmrTennant forgot to also check for the article's newness (according to DYK requirements) and length. She also forgot to verify the hook and to check if it was cited inline. Given the issues, I would suggest replacing the provided QPQ with a more complete review of another article. More pressingly for this nomination, however, is the sentence verifying ALT2 (the only hook I'd personally approve) lacks a footnote: the relevant footnote is instead located in the next sentence. The ref has to be duplicated for DYK verification purposes. Otherwise, Toadspike did a pretty good job for a first review and I hope he takes the above second review for tips in their future reviews. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
