- 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 Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ham and eggs
edit
Ham and eggs
- ... that in 1899, after hiking for four days with almost no food, entrepeneur Duncan Hines ate $5 worth of ham and eggs at a restaurant in Cheyenne, Wyoming?
- Reviewed: Shafy Bello
- Comment: I think the image will look nice in the DYK section of Main page, so I prefer to run the hook with the image
5x expanded by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self-nominated at 09:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC).
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
- ✓ This article is new and was created on 03:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 6303 characters
- ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
- ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
- ✓ The probability of copyright violation is 7.4%. (confirm)
- Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
- No overall issues detected
- ✓ The media File:目玉焼き.JPG is free-use
- ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 150 characters
- ✓ This is Northamerica1000's 197th nomination. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Shafy Bello was performed for this nomination.
Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 13:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Northamerica1000 - Human review coming up. I am seeing a dead link titled "Ham and eggs concert..." according to the check link too? Other checks - replaced a redirect so it's been expanded plenty, sources generally look good, well written. QPQ is done. No copyright violations detected. Picture does indeed look good for the main page. Hook is cited as well so the dead link is really the only challenge here. MPJ-DK 21:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Extended discussion
- @MPJ-DK: Dead links do not have to be removed, because they can sometimes be fixed using archived or cached webpages. For example, there's the Wayback Machine from Internet Archive. I don't perceive the dead link as a problem. See also Wikipedia:Link rot, where it states, "Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available.".North America1000 23:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- So you kinda put the solution in there yourself, there is a reason why the "cite web" option has an "archive-url" option, so that authors can put the archive link in there, help the readers actually get to the information you cited. And you will notice I did not say "removed it". MPJ-DK 23:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: I updated the article with a cite web template for the dead url and added the archive-url parameters (diff). A brief try to obtain a cached version of the source failed, but perhaps others may have more luck. Is this to your satisfaction? North America1000 00:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: - Considering that the link is still dead and you could not find a replacement I would not say that I am satisfied, we're back at where we started really. I have no problem asking for a second opinion on the dead link, there are several much more seasoned DYK reviewers around who could probably address the issue of dead links? MPJ-DK 00:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: Let's keep this simple. Additional tries to find a cached version of the dead url failed, so I removed the source (diff) per WP:MDLI, because the newer source I added when expanding the article verifies all of the information anyway. Is this to your satisfaction? North America1000 00:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- I also just added another source to verify content for this section (diff). North America1000 00:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
