- 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 Jolly Ω Janner 05:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hetty Reckless
edit- ... that Hetty Reckless was born in 1776, escaped from Salem, and boasted of seeing George Washington?
- Reviewed: 2015 Singapore Grand Prix
- Comment: Written for Black Women's History Month
Created by Andrew Davidson (talk) and Ckoerner (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 14:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC). Expanded by SusunW.
| 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 eligibility:
- Freely licensed:
- na - Used in article: - na
- Clear at 100px: - na
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
So it's not nominated in time after it's creation and I do not see the Quid Pro Quo review listed either? and I am apparently unable to read, which is a prerequisite on Wikipedia I guess? Sorry about that MPJ-US 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking. 2015 Singapore Grand Prix was listed as the QPQ. In that case I found that the hook was not supported and so flagged the article with a
for further work. I then did some further work myself, suggesting another hook. Isn't that enough? As for the timing, the article seems new enough and, as it has been especially written for the current Black Women's History Month event, it would be a shame to waste it. Please excuse any technical error in the submission. I shall do another QPQ now as penance. Andrew D. (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking. 2015 Singapore Grand Prix was listed as the QPQ. In that case I found that the hook was not supported and so flagged the article with a
- Man how did I miss that? sorry man the QPQ is fine. And with it being subject specific I am okay with a few days off on the nomination time. I am passing this one. MPJ-US 12:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reconsidering. I have trouble spotting QPQs too. I think it's because they are described as Reviewed in the template and I expect to be looking for a QPQ keyword. Anyway, I have just done a review of Dorothy Galton to make sure. I copied your use of the {{DYK checklist}} which is a helpful time-saver, thanks. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in, but this article is listed as a stub, and one of the sources cited is a wordpress source. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Per cited source (by the way, fact-checking would be made so much more convenient if you included the gBook link or something like that; pretty sure you didn't read the offline copy), she did not live to 105. Not to be pedantic, but that is what the source says. "Nearly lived to" is not quite equivalent to "lived to". Thanks. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
In response to the new points raised above:
- The stub issue is a technicality which is readily addressed by removing the stub templates. I have done so.
- The Wordpress source explains itself as "...an interpretive program using cellphones, mobile technology, and the internet to explore and experience African-American history and the Underground Railroad in Salem County, New Jersey. It is a production of the Salem County Cultural & Heritage Commission in partnership with the Foundation for New Jersey Public Broadcasting." Presumably, Wordpress was used as a convenient means of putting the content online. As the content was supervised by an academic advisory board which included two history professors – the source seems quite reliable and adequate for our purpose.
- Agree with this analysis. Blogs states specifically "these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control". (FYI, I usually put a note explaining my rationale for using such a blog) SusunW (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Smedley says "aged nearly 105 years". I have added the word "almost" to reflect this.
- I don't include Google URLs in such articles because search links are deprecated, Google's service tends to vary over time/place while the extent to which they infringe copyright is disputed.
- I have no idea if this is a WP "rule" or not. I would say in the spirit of "Say where you got it" that if you didn't physically possess the bound copy, the URL should be given, as you viewed it on line. I try to save every single link I put into a file in Wayback. If you use the book tool, you can save the URL given in the Wayback Archive for later retrieval. SusunW (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
As we now need further review, I'm pinging SusunW who has good experience of such topics and so may be able to help us. Andrew D. (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Now that all of that is out of the way...give me a few minutes and I'll do the review. SusunW (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I do not see how it passes "new". The exception to time can only be made for new editors, per my understanding, and I believe that deadline is a week. It is overdue more than a week and not new editors. Maybe it can be expanded to 5x. I'll see what I can contribute. SusunW (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Now that all of that is out of the way...give me a few minutes and I'll do the review. SusunW (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Need a reviewer. Should be expanded 5x. When Missvain left it on 30 Jan. was 1093 char (x5 = 5465) and is currently 5494 char. Assuming expansion started on Feb. 4 with Ckoerner's edit it was nominated at 6 days. SusunW (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)