Template:Did you know nominations/Rhode Island banking crisis
- 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) 10:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rhode Island banking crisis
edit- ... that during the Rhode Island banking crisis of the early 1990s, hundreds of thousands of people lost access to their money?
- ALT1:... that 300,000 people lost access to their money during the Rhode Island banking crisis, some for more than two years?
- ALT2:... that 45 banks and credit unions closed during the Rhode Island banking crisis of the early 1990s, and hundreds of thousands of people lost access to their money?
Created/expanded by Rhododendrites (talk). Self-nominated at 05:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC).
- Page was created from scratch by Rhododendrites on July 4 and is rather more than long enough. The hook statement (I prefer the first one give) is well-supported by articles. The article is very nicely pieced together from a few publicly available sources. Having checked the statements in the article line by line, they seem to be drawn very reasonably from the sources cited. (The only thing I'm having a little trouble with is the point about the sales tax staying on, sourced to here, from which I can't seem to get part 2.) In the long run perhaps this article would benefit from the use of more sources. However, this is completely ready to go for Did You Know, pending completion of the quid pro quo review. groupuscule (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Groupuscule: Thanks. Part two is used in the article here. The website is indeed a bit broken, though. QPQ is done. There's a detail to be worked out with that nomination. I will, of course, be following up with that, but I don't believe it's required that the QPQ nomination come to a final resolution prior to "counting." Am I mistaken? Certainly agree with your point that there should be more sources, as there's certainly no lack. Hoping to come back to it soon, but it seemed fine for DYK. Thanks for the review. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Green check mark it is. Excellent work. groupuscule (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
