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) 05:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sally Tanner

[edit]

Lemons

Created/expanded by Ellin Beltz (talk). Self nom at 01:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to use this image File:Lemon.jpg but I don't know how to go backwards in the template to do that. I'm sorry this is only my third DYK and I am still learning.Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added the image, but I'm not sure of the purpose- a play on Lemon law? The image also has to be used in the article and it's not currently. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's the article on the so-called California lemon law: California AB 1215, Maile66 (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC) And maybe not. California AB 1215 is too recent to have been connected with Sally Tanner. But it would be helpful to find the law. Maile66 (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
QPQ is still needed List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses was already reviewed and approved to go by hamiltonstone before you added your name as a reviewer. Please pick another nomination that no one else has already approved to review as a QPQ. Maile66 (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz still has fewer than 5 DYK credits, so a quid-pro-quo (QPQ) review is not required yet. Re-reviewing and confirming an already-approved hook is good practice for DYK reviewing, but Maile66's advice will need to be followed when QPQ is required. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


Thank you everyone for all your help on the article!

Again, thank you to everyone, the process of writing for Wikipedia - especially new articles is vastly improved by the DYK review process. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I am taking notes of everything I learn and won't repeat the errors, I hope.

Maile66 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • New enough, long enough, hook fact is verified, plenty of footnotes, and I did not find evidence of close paraphrasing or other forms of copyvio. However, the image can't be used. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)