- The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Boots Adams
edit- ... that Bartlesville, Oklahoma was officially renamed Bootsville for one day—honoring Boots Adams on his 66th birthday?
Created by John Cline (talk). Self nominated at 23:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC).
This sentence "On Adams' 66th birthday, schools closed in Bartlesville, the town was renamed "Bootsville" for the day, and Adams' friend and golf buddy, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the honored guest in attendance." needs to explained more. He was in attendance for what? His death place and date also needs to be sourced. — DivaKnockouts 03:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I understand, thank you. I'll correct those shortfalls right away and leave a note here when I finish. :) John Cline (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have completed an extensive copyedit of the article and believe it addresses your concerns. I will look forward to seeing if you agree. Cheers. :) John Cline (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I understand, thank you. I'll correct those shortfalls right away and leave a note here when I finish. :) John Cline (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've just noticed that there are some issues within the article. Much of the headings sound like promotion. And does there really have to be that many sub-headings? I also found this unsourced sentence "His legacy remains as a testament to his benefactions—enduring in worthwhile remembrance; Cemented in perpetuity by the strength of his deed." which too sounds like promotion. There are many instances like the one above. — DivaKnockouts 06:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll work on those angles and let you know when its done, thanks. :) John Cline (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed the wikipuffery and consolidated several of the sub-sections. I have no connection to the subject and did not intentionally mean to promote the guy. I guess that the more research I do, the more I end up respecting him, and it did show up as favorable prose. I think it is more neutral now and more encyclopedic. I'll monitor this page in hopes that you agree. Cheers. :) John Cline (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that's much better. Article is now good to go. Article is long enough (11646 characters (1867 words) of "readable prose size") and new enough (created July 10, 2013). Above issues have been addressed. — DivaKnockouts 05:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for a fair and diligent review of this nomination. I agree with you completely that it is much better without the synthesized glamorization—that would have escaped me if not for your prudent reality check. Thank you again. :) John Cline (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll work on those angles and let you know when its done, thanks. :) John Cline (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've just noticed that there are some issues within the article. Much of the headings sound like promotion. And does there really have to be that many sub-headings? I also found this unsourced sentence "His legacy remains as a testament to his benefactions—enduring in worthwhile remembrance; Cemented in perpetuity by the strength of his deed." which too sounds like promotion. There are many instances like the one above. — DivaKnockouts 06:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
