Template:Did you know nominations/Seattle Totem Pole
- 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) 06:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Seattle Totem Pole
edit.jpeg)
Pioneer Square Totem Pole, circa 1911
- ... that the Pioneer Square Totem Pole was originally stolen from a Tlingit village by members of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce who then gifted it to the city in 1899? Source: http://historylink.org/File/2076
- ALT1:... that members of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce stole the Pioneer Square Totem Pole from a Tlingit village in 1899 and gifted it to the City of Seattle? Source: http://historylink.org/File/2076
Created by SamCordes (talk). Self-nominated at 03:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC).
- Reviewed: Newbury Park tube station
- Comment: This article was originally titled Seattle Totem Pole but was moved to Pioneer Square Totem Pole after this DYK nom was created. I updated the hooks but left the title of the nomination Seattle Totem Pole
- Review: Article's length and age are OK; citations are inline and the references are OK; no copyvio or policy issues; interesting hook fact; hook length and formatting OK; image is OK. --Z 15:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Length and age are good, references look good, and the hook fact is good, but there are a few issues to take care of:
- In the lead, the phrase "the replica is now designated a National Historic Landmark" does not appear to be verified by the cited source (source 6).
- In the section "Seattle Post-Intelligencer expedition", the list of stops is uncited.
- In the "Appearance" section, the phrase "The original Chief-of-All-Women pole was originally reported to be 49 feet 8 inches (15.14 m) tall" does not appear to be in the source cited (source 1)
- It would be helpful if you could give specific page numbers for the Garfield cites, rather than a broad range.
Once these are taken care of, we should be ready to go.--Cúchullain t/c 15:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review @Cuchullain:, I have addressed all the above concerns and updated the citation style to WP:SRF. Thanks! SamCordes (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to go now.--Cúchullain t/c 21:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
