Talk:W. P. Mahoney

Did you know nomination

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 97198 (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Mahoney in 1924

• ... that future Arizona state senator W. P. Mahoney (pictured) founded the first miner's union in Arizona in 1912? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Peck (RAF officer)

Created by Onel5969 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Onel5969: The article is good, but it suffers from not being chronological and is difficult to read when just skimming through which is what most people will do. I will reorganize the article and then okay it. The article is about a pretty interesting guy, but it would be semi-confusing for somebody who just browses Wikipedia. Also for some reason there were a bunch of empty parameters in the infobox, but that was just a honest mistake (I sometimes do that too lol). Jon698 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Onel5969: This article is okay to go now. Jon698 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• This was promoted, then pulled per a WP:ERRORS discussion.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  01:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Onel5969, Mandarax, and Jon698: I've also found evidence that the Snowball union existed in 1909, so we're going to need a new hook. I would like to suggest: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that future Arizona state senator W. P. Mahoney (pictured) became an acquaintance of Wyatt Earp when he was a miner?

• @Sammi Brie: That sounds fine and more interesting than founding some union. Jon698 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Jon698: Is that a tick? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Sammi Brie: Yes. Jon698 (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Restoring tick for ALT1 per Jon698. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Onel5969 and Jon698: Two concerns with ALT1: 1) it says "future Arizona state senator" which implies that he is going to be a senator in 2022 or later, but he was a senator in the 1910s. I don't think the word "future" is needed. 2) I don't think Wyatt Earp is a well-known figure (I have never heard of this person, ) so I don't think it is an interesting hook for the general DYK audience. Is there another hook that can be suggested? Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Future does not exclusively mean past our present date. It can also mean past a certain event such as "future president George Washington did (x)" does not imply that he is going to become president in 2024. Also Wyatt Earp is probably the most famous lawman of the Wild West and his Wikipedia page has had 134,330 views in the past thirty days. Jon698 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'll readd the tick, as my concerns are addressed above. I still think "future" should be struck from the hook, but I will not be bothered if it stays. Since Wyatt Earp is a Level 5 vital article, and gets a lot of page views, I think it's OK. Unfortunately, there isn't a picture slot for this at the moment so I will let another prepper promote this. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Miscounted the slots, but I will leave it open for another prepper to consider this. Z1720 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Lead

As MOS:LEAD reads, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents...The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Clearly the person's death is an important part of their life, and should be mentioned in the lead, but EVERYTHING in the lead should be in the body of the article, since the lead is a summary of body. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is a summary of the article. The lead begins: W. P. Mahoney (1882 – July 31, 1967) was an American lawyer and politician.... Thus the lifespan is clearly established right off the bat. I see no good reason to again mention the year of death at the end of the lead: it's redundant and rather trivial (the death was not particularly noteworthy: everyone dies). Don't you think it would be redundant if the lead read: "W. P. Mahoney (1882 – July 31, 1967) was an American lawyer and politician. He was born in 1882 and died in 1967."? Look at the leads of George Washington, William Shakespeare, Charles Darwin, and most other biographies: unless the death is particularly noteworthy (assassinations, disappearances, controversies, etc.) there's no good reason to pedantically repeat "he died" when said fact (and date) is already indicated in the very first sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• I probably included the "He died in 1967" part by mistake while rewriting the lead. It would be fine to remove it. I must have overlooked it while restructuring the article's chronology. Jon698 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)