Talk:Huey Tum Ajnabi

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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: rejected by reviewer, closed by BorgQueen talk 22:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created by M.Billoo2000 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

M. Billoo 01:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Unfortunately, the article is ineligible for WP:DYK. It was not created or moved to mainspace within the last seven days, it is not a recent 5x expansion, and it was not recently promoted to GA status. @M.Billoo2000: please read WP:DYKNEW to understand DYK's criteria for eligibility. Even if the article was eligible, it would require copyediting to be suitable for presentation on the main page. In addition, neither of the hooks meet WP:DYKINT as they are unlikely to interest readers unfamiliar with Faiz or the ISPR of Pakistan. No QPQ needed for a nominator with less than five DYK nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Hi. No problem. Actually, it was my very first attempt at DYK, and despite I have studied the policies, I thought I should give a try anyways. Thank you! M. Billoo 11:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Huey Tum Ajnabi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: M.Billoo2000 (talk · contribs) 00:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Plifal (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Failed good article nomination on November 26, 2025

[edit]

Upon its review on November 26, 2025, this good article nomination was quick-failed because:

it contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags that are still valid,

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. Unfortuantely I'm quickfailing this. Uncited statements in the notes, the use of youtube as a source, heavy reliance on quotes, the lead feels underdeveloped, but the main reason is that there's been an orange banner since July 2025 indicating that a proper plot summary needs to be written, which should be a prerequisite for film good articles. I'm sorry you've been waiting a while for this, and I hope it doesn't discourage you, but I strongly feel a fair amount of work needs to be done on this before reconsidering it for a good article nomination.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.--Plifal (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.