Talk:Ranchlander National Bank

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the circumstances surrounding the closure of Texas's Ranchlander National Bank were described as a "dime-store novel"? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=lQyzUHhsq1EC&pg=PA1954&lpg=PA1954&dq=%22Orrin+Shaid%22&source=bl&ots=768g5VZ0_Y&sig=ACfU3U2og1a2om9A9E5pL7cOT51P3aUJgA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiro_raiov3AhWTDkQIHdg2DfwQ6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Orrin%20Shaid%22&f=false
  • ALT1: ... that the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was blamed for letting a convicted bank fraudster gain de facto control of the Ranchlander National Bank in Texas? Source: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/95403NCJRS.pdf (pp 38–40)
  • ALT2: ... that altered certificates of deposit were used to fraudulently purchase the Ranchlander National Bank in Texas? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/93875072/affidavit-shows-shaid-owns-bank-in/
  • Reviewed: Rōki Sasaki (2 of 2)
  • Comment: It's not a radio station (though I found out about it because of one), and it's bonkers!

Moved to mainspace by Sammi Brie (talk). Self-nominated at 18:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC).

• New, long article about a fascinating story. Good sources, neutral point of view and no copyright issues I could find. All the hooks are short, interesting and supported by sources in the article. A QPQ review has been provided, but it has already been used in another nomination. As I read the rules, a review can't be used twice just because it's for a multi-article nomination. The rules make a distinction between nominations and articles ("If the nomination is for multiple articles...") and says you need to review a nomination for each bolded article in your own hook. If I have misunderstood this and there is a clarification about it somewhere, please let me know and I'll approve the nomination, which otherwise looks great. If not, you need another review. Ffranc (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Ffranc: Myself and other editors have done this in the past, though you are right that the rules are not good at clarifying it. See El Loco and Euro-Fighter coasters, a 10-article hook that used 6 QPQ credits from Skagen Painters. This should really be mentioned somewhere in the supplemental guidelines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Per WP:DYKSG#H4, my understanding was that for each article you nominated, you had to review another article; conversely, each article reviewed counted toward one QPQ credit. So I'm inclined to agree with Sammi Brie. Still, it may not hurt to ask the @DYK admins: whether the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 185#QPQ freebies resulted in us changing the language of the QPQ description. As far as I'm aware, it was credit-for-credit prior to the discussion, i.e. if someone reviewed a nomination with two articles, then they received two QPQ credits. The "nominations" language seems to have already been in the policy page before these edits, but it seems that no one's really ever questioned whether it was a nomination-per-nomination QPQ until now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, from memory, that is how it's supposed to work - though I'm surprised it apparently isn't clarified in the rules. To do otherwise would mean there would be no incentive for anybody to review multis, as they would have to review multiple nominations for no additional benefit. Gatoclass (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, seems I was wrong. I found the original discussion that lead to the implementation of the multi-QPQ requirement, and the main issue was how laborous it was to check each article when people posted massive multi-noms. Then it makes sense to base QPQ on the number of checked articles, not the number of nominations they appear in. Everything is good then. Ffranc (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The rules have been updated for next time, too, so this should hopefully be the last time we have this question seriously. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)