- The following is an archived discussion of Mendocino War's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC).
DYK toolbox |
---|
Mendocino War
edit- ... that between the first white settlement in 1856 and the end of the Mendocino War in 1860, the Native American population in Mendocino County, California decreased by 80%?
- Comment: US Education Program, course Education Program:Boston College/History of the American West (2013 Q1)
5x expanded by Bellitan (talk). Nominated by GabrielF (talk) at 19:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC).
- Hook is short and interesting, article is new and of sufficient length. However, the 80% reduction claim is not directly supported by an inline cite - I assume it's meant to be Secrest 1988, but that citation is in a different sentence making a separate, if related, claim. In addition, the nominator already has five DYK credits, and hasn't mentioned which other DYK article they reviewed when nominating this one. If these issues are addressed, this should be fine, with AGF for the offline ref. Anaxial (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- With regards to reviewing other DYKs: the student composed the hook, I'm just pasting it in and should not get credit for this DYK. Do I still need to review another DYK? My only concern is that I'm working with a number of students and don't want to have to do, say, 10 reviews. GabrielF (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hook is short and interesting, article is new and of sufficient length. However, the 80% reduction claim is not directly supported by an inline cite - I assume it's meant to be Secrest 1988, but that citation is in a different sentence making a separate, if related, claim. In addition, the nominator already has five DYK credits, and hasn't mentioned which other DYK article they reviewed when nominating this one. If these issues are addressed, this should be fine, with AGF for the offline ref. Anaxial (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)