Talk:LaVere Redfield/Archive 1

Previous AfD

An article with this title was deleted in 2017.

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that after LaVere Redfield's death 12 tons of silver dollars were found hidden in his garage and home? Source: 400,000 silver dollars found hidden in Redfield’s garage and mansion after his death were only a part of his treasure, that more might be buried elsewhere. 407,000 silver dollars 12 tons

** ALT1: ... that one of the richest thefts in U.S. history occurred when LaVere Redfield's home was robbed in 1952? Source: "Richest theft in U.S. History".

- ALT2: ... that LaVere Redfield was a potato digger who went on to become a millionaire? Source: No link because the potato part is from a book (The curious life of Nevada's LaVere Redfield : the silver dollar king), second part Net worth 70-200 million USD
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/SCR-720 ‎

Created by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 03:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Long enough, new enough, well-sourced, seems neutral. Doesn't look like a copyvio. Hooks are interesting; I like hooks no. 1 and 3 most. AGF on the source for hook no. 3. QPQ done. The only issue I see is that the article uses a different style for the dates in multiple places (On 30 April 1962... On April 7, 1961... 29 October 1897 – 6 September 1974 Born: October 29, 1897 ... Died: September 6, 1974); you need to chose one and be consistent throughout the article. Once that's done I will approve. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Thanks for the review. I thoroughly enjoyed working on this article. Thanks for finding that date format issue, I believe I corrected them all. Bruxton (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton, BeanieFan11, and Theleekycauldron: reopening this as the hook text in prep has changed quite significantly from what was approved, and now contains the frowned-upon phrase "believed to be" in relation to the hook fact. The same sentiment of "thought to be" is also expressed in the article, and will need to be attributed per WP:WEASEL. And then either stick to one of the above hooks, or phrase it suitably in the amended hook.

The hook text in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 at the time of reopening this read:

* ... that the burglary of LaVere Redfield's home in 1952 was believed to be the largest in U.S. history?

Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: The reviewer and myself liked Hook 0. The reviewer accidentally called hook 0... 1. Bruxton (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru and BeanieFan11: do we need another tick here? Thanks Bruxton (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source that hook was based on similarly weaseled out, I believe. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Nooooo. The article specifically says exactly what ALT0 says. The hook uses no WP:WEASEL words. It is precise. Bruxton (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but one of the sources (Spokane Daily Chronicle) says that it was "believed to be the biggest in United States history". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: The hook is not weaseling - that is what we apply weasel too, what we are stating in a wikivoice. The hook is stating an interesting fact supported by many news sources. Bruxton (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron and Amakuru: I do not know what is supposed to happen here. Someone promoted an unapproved hook from this nomination and added weasel words to it. Now the nom is stuck. ALT0 is supported and approved by both nominator and reviewer. It has no weaseling. Bruxton (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: sorry for not responding to your earlier pings. For me, the issue was both with the altered hook (which wasn't approved) and also with the WEASEL statement in the article itself, saying the robbery was "thought to be" the biggest on record, without saying who thought that. I have no rectified that myself, by quoting the Spokane Daily Chronicle directly, so that issues is resolved. And since ALT0 was the hook originally proposed, I'm happy to reapprove that now on the same basis as its original approval. ALT0 good to go whenever a promoter comes along. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

LaVere Redfield on the telephone during his 1960-61 tax evasion trial.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:LaVere Redfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 00:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately tagged I think; I've never seen that coin licence before but I can't see anything wrong with it. Sources are reliable.

It's implied the burglaries might have been faked, but the only definite statement to that efffect is the 1974 news article. Did the authorities say anything to that effect? Was it an possibility raised at the trial? Were the eight people arrested convicted -- in fact what was the outcome of that trial? I did not mean to imply that, I do think he was actually robbed both times. I think from my research he was reluctant to give a full accounting of his wealth, and tried to not attract government scrutiny
Done Was anyone ever arrested in connection with the 1961 burglary? It appears there not never any arrests and Redfield was not forthcoming about what was stolen.
Done Is there more information about the details of his tax evasion? It's a major event in his life. The newspaper accounts may not have much detail, though.
Done In which jail did he serve his sentence?
Done "Harpster discovered that Redfield": I think "According to Harper, Redfield" would be more natural.
Done "One of the reasons Redfield moved to Nevada: the state advertised": suggest "One of the reasons Redfield moved to Nevada was that the state advertised"
Not done"Redfield was involved in more than twelve lawsuits": over what period? His whole life? Even if you specify that, it's not very meaningful as "more than twelve" could be almost any number. not sure yet what to do with this one, the source uses that exact language.
Done "Other sources claim that he was worth 70 million or more": use the $ for money amounts. Added $ and formatted per MOS:DOLLAR
Done"he drove a beat up truck": "beat up" is a bit colloquial. changed to "battered" to match the source

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxton, just checking that you're planning to work on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and the review. I will get to work on the list. Bruxton (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I made some corrections to the article. I love revisiting the article and reading about Redfield. Please let me know if there are more changes needed. Bruxton (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes and/or replies look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig finds only a couple of unavoidable phrases. Spotchecks:

FN 7 cites "Half of the fortune was left to his wife, Nell, and half of his estate was left to his 52 year old niece Dorothy R. Deschamps. His niece claimed she had not seen Redfield since she was a little girl, but she sent him a Christmas card every year." Verified.
FN 9 cites "In October 1960 his trial began: he stated that he could not afford a lawyer so he represented himself at the trial." Verified.
FN 4 cites "Redfield made his fortune dealing in oil land in Los Angeles." Verified.

Spotchecks look good, so passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]