Template:Did you know nominations/Wrigley Field ivy
- 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) 21:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Wrigley Field ivy
edit.jpg)
Wrigley Field ivy
- ... that any baseballs that get hit and lodged in the Wrigley Field ivy (pictured) score the batter a double? ESPN
- ALT1:... that the Wrigley Field ivy (pictured) causes the Chicago Cubs to lose around $30 million a year? ESPN
- Reviewed: 2004 Nippon Professional Baseball realignment
- Comment: For 10 April (the Cubs' first home game as World Series Champions)
Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 10:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC).
- @The C of E:
Article is long enough, uses in-line citations, is neutrally written and was nominated the same day as being created. Spot-checking does not find issues with plagiarism, copyvio, or unduly close paraphrasing. The image has an appropriate license. QPQ is complete. Both hooks are short enough, neutral, cited and interesting. I would go with ALT1 as it is more broad appeal, but will leave it up to the promoter. Good to go. Great job! – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this to the April 10 prep, but note that ALT1 is inaccurate both here and in the article. The Cubs lose $30 million in advertising annually because they can't use the perimeter walls for advertising signs – because that would block the view of watchtowers and viewers outside the park. It has nothing to do with the ivy, and the source (ESPN) doesn't mention the ivy at all. The source is talking about the outer walls, not the outfield walls. Please fix this in the article. Should I go ahead and promote the original hook, even without an image? Yoninah (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I have made the change and I am happy for the original to be promoted. Personally I would prefer it if we could use the image please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @The C of E:
