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 Launchballer talk 17:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewer instructions Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count A Simple Word Counter Reviewers' template Find sources (notability) Hook length

Itutumba Ka ng Tatay Ko

• ... that singer and actor Janno Gibbs made his directorial debut with Itutumba Ka ng Tatay Ko? Source: Janno Gibbs’ directorial debut film is ‘best parting gift’ from late dad Ronaldo Valdez - The Philippine Star
  • ALT1: ...that singer and actor Janno Gibbs dedicated his directorial debut film Itutumba Ka ng Tatay Ko to his late father Ronaldo Valdez? Source: [1]
  • Reviewed:

Created by RapMonstaXY (talk). Self-nominated at 13:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Itutumba Ka ng Tatay Ko; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment: Nominated for a double hook. 4x QPQ per emergency backlog mode.
• Even as someone familiar with Gibbs, the hook probably won't appeal to those outside the Philippines, so a new hook is probably needed here. Maybe a hook about the connection with his late father would be better? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Already made ALT1. RMXY (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds okay. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• The article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination and is free of close paraphrasing. ALT1 is cited inline and verified in the source. No QPQ has been given, please confirm if you have over five nominations, because if this is the case then you will need to provide a QPQ for this nomination to proceed. I think the Production section could use some copyediting. Once these issues are addressed the nomination will be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• @RapMonstaXY: Have the above been resolved? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Z1720: That issue was resolved. I made 4x QPQ emergency backlog. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Z1720, ScarletViolet, I see no evidence of any prior DYK nominations, which would mean that no QPQ of any kind is required. (I also see no evidence of any edits to any other Template pages than this one, which would mean no QPQ has been conducted.) A minor point: a dual nomination requires three QPQs (one for each article, plus one extra for each nomination while in backlog mode), not four, if the nominator has 20 or more prior DYK noms. Pinging also reviewer Narutolovehinata5, since no QPQ is needed nor should be expected. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I am waiting both for a response from the nominator and an update on the copyediting before proceeding. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: Issues have been resolved. Thank you. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 03:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, the nominator has responded. Please proceed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Since Narutolovehinata5 hasn't responded I am taking this over. I'm rejecting this on several points. First, the article fails the WP:DYKCOMPLETE criteria. There's very little content on the film itself. Most of the article's prose deals with trivial facts (most of which are WP:FANCRUFT/not encyclopedic) about pre and mid production, and there is very little content on the actual film in its completed state. The plot summary is perfunct to the point of being incomplete. Likewise, the review section is mainly consistent of a single quote that isn't even translated into English which is against WP:MOS policy. It too is perfunct to the point of being incomplete. In short, I would consider this a WP:STUB. Second, neither of the proposed hooks are interesting. Plenty of time has been given to propose a new hook. Given the age of the nom, it's time to pass on this article.4meter4 (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding in time (I was actually about to reply when the above comment was made). For what it's worth, I have to agree with 4meter4's comments regarding completeness, and I also have reservations about the reliability of Goldwin Reviews as a review source (not to mention not having an English translation). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)