Talk:The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal
 | A fact from The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 December 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
- 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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- ... that Cuthbert Headlam, co-founder and editor of The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal, felt that the fighting of the First World War was futile?
ALT1: ... that The Army Quarterly and Defence Journal was established during the era of trench warfare but ended during the nuclear age?- ALT2: ... that before the Second World War, Australian army officers used the pages of Britain's Army Quarterly and Defence Journal to argue for greater self-reliance in defence matters?
Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
- see comments
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
A worthwhile and well structured article that I'm surprised had not been created before. The article is new enough, long enough and well sourced. Turning to the hooks, the first is fine and fully sourced in the text; ALT2 is also good and cited in the text and AGF; however ALT1, whilst good, is not actually mentioned in the text and I'm sure it has to be to qualify. It's a bit deductive and I'm also not sure that 1929 was still the age of trench warfare. As I've mentioned before, I'm pretty sure we're meant to include the sourcing within the nom itself, but am happy to be corrected on that. So subject to that being clarified, I'm happy to support the main hook and ALT2. Bermicourt (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, it was founded in 1920 but I think we can drop Alt1 anyway. Thanks for confirming that the other two are cited in the text. I have removed The to make Alt2 flow better. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I think this is now GTG. Bermicourt (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Promoting ALT2 to Prep 2 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)