- 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) 06:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Operation Gotham Shield
edit
- ALT1
... that, last year, a nuclear bomb was "detonated" at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel?
- ALT2 ... that, last year, there was a simulated nuclear weapons attack against the New York City area?
Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 19:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, meets core content policies. I love the hook, but can't find it in the article. Jakob (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Jakob Coles thanks for the review! I've proposed an Alt1. Chetsford (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- COMMENT: As written, both ALT0 and ALT1 confusing (no bomb, no denotation). Consider something more explicit: ...that in a war games simulation, a nuclear device was exploded at the New Jersey entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel? David notMD (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- No nuclear device was exploded at the Lincoln Tunnel as part of the simulation. Chetsford (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
- No actual nuclear detonation occurred, therefore the hook is misleading
Overall: A more valid hook needs to be offered. The current hook is misleading, and a new one is needed.
As of the date of nomination the article was new. Article at the time of nomination is over 3k characters of prose, utilized multiple reliable sources, has no significant POV issues observed (IMHO). Utilizing Earwig's Copyvio Detector, it only found it being 8.3%, thus violation appears to be unlikely. The hook cited to three sources, two of them sources of the United States Federal Government, if it the hook wasn't a "hypothetical ground burst" it would be interesting. And, the nominator does appear to meet QPQ, having offered a review of another nomination (which was already featured on the main page). RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks - new alt proposed. Chetsford (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
As this appears to utilize the same references to the previous hook, the issue appears to be resolved. A new reviewer is needed, and it should pass easily.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
| 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
|
|
|
Overall:
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
A more valid hook needs to be offered. The current hook is misleading, and a new one is needed.
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)