Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Honorable Dragon
- 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) 22:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Operation Honorable Dragon
edit- ... that the Royalist guerrillas of Operation Honorable Dragon ran from "ghosts"?
Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC).
- A:
Long enough, new enough, neutral, cites sources, AGF on all off-line sources. - H1: Short enough, does however need to drop the "...." at the end. Also, they didn't run from actual ghosts, but "ghosts" (what they thought were ghosts), so quotation marks are needed, alternatively words along the lines of "what they believed to be".
- H2: Interesting hook, cited to book source, neutral enough.
- O: QPQ carried out, no image with hook. Manxruler (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I did give some thought to those quote marks before I made this nomination. While it is fair to say the fleeing Laotians believed in ghosts, the readers will (largely) believe in "ghosts". If I remove the quote marks from the article, will the hook then be okay?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can't really say that. I think the use of quotation marks in the article is correct, and the lack of quotation marks in the hook is incorrect. I feel that the hook would be too misleading without the quotation marks. And "...." needs removing from the end of the hook. Manxruler (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I said, it's a judgment call, and I don't mind the help. It's just that I hate to lose that extra little frisson to the hook. Sigh. Anyhow, your requested corrections have made.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I get that, but I think that seeing as we know what they ran from wasn't ghost/unexplainable forces, it's a little bit far to leave out the quotation marks. Anyway, GTG now. Manxruler (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are a charm to work with, Manx. Thanks for the review.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I said, it's a judgment call, and I don't mind the help. It's just that I hate to lose that extra little frisson to the hook. Sigh. Anyhow, your requested corrections have made.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can't really say that. I think the use of quotation marks in the article is correct, and the lack of quotation marks in the hook is incorrect. I feel that the hook would be too misleading without the quotation marks. And "...." needs removing from the end of the hook. Manxruler (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I did give some thought to those quote marks before I made this nomination. While it is fair to say the fleeing Laotians believed in ghosts, the readers will (largely) believe in "ghosts". If I remove the quote marks from the article, will the hook then be okay?Georgejdorner (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
