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 Allen3 talk 06:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival

[edit]
(
)

Created by 72.74.206.24 (talk), 72.74.203.80 (talk), 72.74.195.34 (talk). Nominated by Crisco 1492 (talk) at 06:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC).

  •  Doing... I'm doing the review. --Tito☸Dutta 08:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
( Multiple issues: a) red links as "Main article" links should be removed, b) if you remove red links that becomes empty section, c) unsourced section d) multiple MoS errors/issues like cap, using bold formatting in a section "H. P. Lovecraft Walking Tour" WP:ALSO. --Tito☸Dutta 11:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Will contact actual nominator (72.74.195.34). Hope s/he finds the message. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Also note that small MOS issues such as the bolding are not DYK criteria in and of themselves. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Welcome 72..... red links as Main article link or See also links are problematic, c) the Awards section is unsourced, yes, I'll fix minor errors if needed, minor MoS errors are not DYK criteria--Tito☸Dutta 23:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • 72, an abbreviated version of your work in progress would be okay in these empty sections (if you've got the sources). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are the links to the AFC pages:

72.74.216.249 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Observation: I can see awards section have been cited, please check the "Main article" issue, last day after your posts I thought to quick review those two AFC articles, but, later found almost all are primary sources, If I review I'll ask to add at few *at least 1–2 secondary RS). --Tito☸Dutta 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that really nessessary? It's not like they're being used to cite anything controversial. Pretty much all of the pages in Category:Lists of films by award are sourced to official websites including the Cannes and Sundance Film Festivals. The List of Academy Award-winning films doesn't even have any sources. Isn't it alright to use primary sources for citing basic facts? 72.74.198.36 (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not a valid argument. If I create such an article, I'll definitely add at least few secondary sources, this not only indicates that we are following WP:SECONDARY, but also shows similar articles are being written by other notable sites (the easiest way you can do it is a lead, write few lines of the history etc.. the way they suggest at WP:FL and add one–two sources). But, yes, primary sources should be acceptable and are the best possible sources here. And I bet, at least 80% reviewers will accept those sources, but, if few secondary sources are added, the figure will be exact 100%, and I'll be much more comfortable to quick-review those articles. Let's see how it goes and two minor issues at the AFC, do not link headers, and see WP:OVERLINK. Tito☸Dutta 07:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Those 2 AFC articles, not this one. I am saying if at least 1–2 secondary sources are added I'll be much more comfortable to quick review those two articles [etc.] Tito☸Dutta 08:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why this got so sidetracked by the status of AfC entries. Anyway, page was created on 26th and submitted on the 31st. This is just past the deadline, but only by a few hours, so that's not a problem. The prose is certainly long enough. There are some citation issues in the text that I've noted, but it's not so substantial to be a concern. A spot-check for copvio and close paraphrasing revealed no problematic writing. The vast majority of prose that can be verifiably checked is supported. As for the hooks, I added an online source for Hook 1, though it would have been fine without it. ALT1 is not reliably sourced (it's a statement from the festival's blog), which I'll be striking. ALT2 is reliably sourced, but I've added an online source to it for confirmation. ALT2 seems like a fitting hook for Halloween-- are there any objections to me moving it down there? I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Category