Template:Did you know nominations/Federal Protective Forces

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 So Why 18:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Federal Protective Forces

(

)

U.S. Federal Protective Forces at the Savannah River Site

... that studies show that up to 50 percent of the personnel in a United States Federal Protective Forces detachment could be killed defending a U.S. Department of Energy facility from intrusion? [1] "Mandated testing of security, performed at all DOE facilities, shows that up to 50 percent of the guard force could be killed while reacting to or trying to prevent the theft or sabotage of nuclear material."

Reviewed: Boron monofluoride monoxide

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 05:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC).

Article is new enough, long enough, and NPOV enough. The hook could be more concise. How about, ALT1 "... that 50% of a U.S. Federal Protective Forces detachment could be killed while defending a U.S. Department of Energy facility?" Morganfitzp (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll get a (GF) Fram'ing if we use the Alt hook as the studies show "up to" 50%, not precisely 50%. LavaBaron (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Curious about the difference between "50% could" and "up to 50% could." It's all in the "could." (Though I suppose one could infer that the former means it's either 50% or nothing). Morganfitzp (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

ALT1a ... that up to 50% of a U.S. Federal Protective Forces detachment could be killed while defending a U.S. Department of Energy facility?"

This article is new enough and long enough. I agree with LavaBaron that the original hook is better than ALT1, although ALT1a would be acceptable. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no close paraphrasing or other policy issue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)