Template:Did you know nominations/Granby, South Carolina
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Granby, South Carolina
edit- ... that during the American Revolution, the British stronghold Fort Granby in the South Carolina colony was attacked with a Quaker gun? Source: Tucker, p.539
Created by MB (talk). Self-nominated at 03:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing: - Unfortunately, one paragraph is unsourced in the "Post war era" section
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting: - The quaker gun event did not seem all that interesting to me, are there others?
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Article is new enough, having been created on 16 September, and nominated on 18 September. Article is well over 1,500 characters (including spaces), being initially 7,086 characters making up 1,174 words. Article subject is notable per WP:GEOLAND. ALT0 is mentioned in the article, and supported inline with a reliable source. According to Earwig's tool the highest match is at 19.4%, which is initially concerning, but after closer look it is more matches on pronouns, and thus the article clearly passes not having any copyvio. No image utilized in this nomination. Do have a concern about the lead section statement about 1850, it is not verified by a source in the body of the article. Nominator meets qpq requirement with this review. To close this review, please fix minor issues in article stated above, and provide other hooks for us to consider. This will pass with a little more work! RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- There was no unsourced "paragraph"; only a single sentence that was substantiated by an existing ref. I combined several sentences to make an actual paragraph and added a ref to the sentence in question. As far as the lead statement about 1850, I was trying to generalize the sourced statement that the town was nearly deserted by 1822. I've changed the lead to more closely relate to the 1822 date. MB 02:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: I actually find the quaker gun hook quite hooky; that article link will probably get more hits than Fort Granby. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- RightCowLeftCoast, I think the hook is good. I didn't see anything better in the article. MB 22:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- The substantive issues of the article appear to have been remedied. As for the hook, unless someone is into quaker gun, the failed Thomas Sumter led attack is IMHO OK, but not great.
- Perhaps:
- ALT1 "... that when Fort Granby surrendered in 1781, at Granby, South Carolina, that Loyalist forces were allowed to keep two wagon loads of "personal loot"?"Source: History.com
- ALT2 "... that Granby, South Carolina was the site of a British/Loyalist fortification, as well as a Confederate fortification?Source: Historysoft.com
- --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the comment by Yoninah that most people don't know what a "quaker gun" is and may want to read the article to find more. I think ALT2 is quite boring. ALT1 is better, but I would streamline it as:
- ALT1a "... that when Fort Granby, South Carolina surrendered in 1781, Loyalist forces were allowed to keep two wagon loads of "personal loot"?
- I still prefer ALT0, with ALT1a my second choice. MB 02:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- ? RightCowLeftCoast. MB 03:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes? The nomination needs a new reviewer, no?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- New review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. ALT0, which is the nominator's preference, is quite catchy; hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. Images in article are freely licensed. ALT0 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes? The nomination needs a new reviewer, no?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the comment by Yoninah that most people don't know what a "quaker gun" is and may want to read the article to find more. I think ALT2 is quite boring. ALT1 is better, but I would streamline it as:
- RightCowLeftCoast, I think the hook is good. I didn't see anything better in the article. MB 22:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: I actually find the quaker gun hook quite hooky; that article link will probably get more hits than Fort Granby. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)