- 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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The Hillbilly Thomists
The Hillbilly Thomists
Created by
Pbritti (
talk).
Number of QPQs required:
1. Nominator has 53 past nominations.
Pbritti (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
|
|
|
Overall: 
I’m not at all an experienced reviewer (or editor for that matter) but I believe I understand the DYK criteria well rn to try and help out with the backlog, so if anyone else has comments or if I did something wrong by all means please bring them up! I’d like to particularly request a second opinion on the image licensing (since I’m not sure how having people in a self work affects things). PixDeVl yell talk to me! 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- @PixDeVl: Leads do not require citations (see WP:LEADCITE). Also, you can definitely use images of other people if they're not copyright violations. Let me know if you have any questions! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- PS: remember to post
{{subst:DYKproblem|[Name of article]|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the relevant user's talk page when you review a hook and don't pass it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Pbritti:
Fixed the lead part, someone on the Discord also mentioned WP:LEADCITE, so thank you both, I'll keep it in mind next time I do a review, as well as the notice. 
Thank you! I'd personally pass this, but at the least for this first and maybe few other reviews, I'll leave it as requesting a second opinion. --PixDeVl yell talk to me! 16:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Providing a second opinion here on PixDeVl's request off-wiki. The initial review was mostly good and it looks like the LEADCITE thing was clarified above; no problems there. The image is correctly licensed, which isn't affected by having people as its subject in this context, at least in the United States. The only other concern I had was on the use of Aleteia as a source, as it was criticized at an RSN discussion. However, their about page indicates they have some editorial oversight and the article only uses them for uncontroversial information, so I don't think this is a sticking issue.
Approved! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I’m not at all an experienced reviewer (or editor for that matter) but I believe I understand the DYK criteria well rn to try and help out with the backlog, so if anyone else has comments or if I did something wrong by all means please bring them up! I’d like to particularly request a second opinion on the image licensing (since I’m not sure how having people in a self work affects things). PixDeVl 
