Talk:Les McKeown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Mckeown book.jpg[edit]

Image:Mckeown book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Les McKeown
Les McKeown

5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Review by Proudandsuccessful9 (talk)
  • Article
    • New?
    • Long enough?
    • Within policy?
  • Hook
    • Format
    • Interesting?
    • Accurate? Not supported by reliable sources.
    • Neutral?
  • Requesting a new review. Reviewer above has only 5 edits and incorrectly claimed that the hooks are "[n]ot supported by reliable sources", even though sources have been provided both here and in the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I don't know about that other review. I agree with the green checkmarks, the article was 5x expanded from the last version before he died. Everything is cited, nothing appears to be inaccurate to me. Hook facts are interesting enough and validated by the sources provided. QPQ is done. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had forgotte to review the image. It appears to be a legitimate upload, licensed as PD, so is approved. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]