Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Ichabod Chauncey

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Ichabod Chauncey

(
)

Created by Ficaia (talk). Self-nominated at 12:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC).

  • Nice article, DYK fact sourced and long enough. Tick Chienlit (talk)
@Chienlit: Please could you add some detail in your review that you have considered the DYK criteria (e.g. new enough, within policy, NPOV, no plagiarism/copyright violation, the hook is interesting, sourced inline, that a sufficient QPQ has been provided etc.) and add the relevant tick e.g. (if you can read the ref), or if you are assuming good faith. Cowlibob (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Cowlibob, I am repeating this comment here because the overbearing template refuses to even display my original. To wit: Worthwhile article for Dyk. All red crosses convince me to never try helping the ridiculously overproceduralised, hypercontrolling, dyk again. It seems to be beyond my brain's 'daily diminishing' capability.
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Unknown
Review is incomplete - please fill in the "status" field

@Chienlit: Take a step back. I did not say that you had to use the template. I don't. For reviews, it's good to show evidence that you have considered the criteria so that inappropriate articles don't make it to the prep/queue and then get dropped again. Cowlibob (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the bot takes this nominations as having passed due to the icons above; placing the "?" icon solely to prevent the bot from moving the nomination prematurely to the Approved page when it hasn't been approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and given this a review of my own, to keep the process moving. I don't know if there's a way to do this, but I suggest that since Chienlit did make a good faith effort to conduct a review, they be given the QPQ credit. Article is long enough and new enough. No problems with WP:BLP or WP:NPOV . Earwig flags some things, but they're just some very long titles of sources used in references, so no WP:COPYVIO issues. Everything is referenced to just two sources, but they look like WP:RS and adequate for a historical topic such as this (WP:DYKSG D12). The hook is interesting and the facts are confirmed by the source, but it needs an in-line citation at the end of a sentence which presents the fact(s). -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I've updated the article with 2 extra inline citations. I think the attribution is clear now. ๐•ฑ๐–Ž๐–ˆ๐–†๐–Ž๐–† (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing an in-line citation for "spent two years in exile in Holland where he published a defence of his actions". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: It's in the "Works" section. ๐•ฑ๐–Ž๐–ˆ๐–†๐–Ž๐–† (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ichabod_Chauncey&oldid=1119613884"