Jump to content

Talk:Robert Saunders Jr.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Robert Saunders, Jr.)

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Desertarun (talk07:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 05:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • I completely endorse this DYK with one minor question for User:Pbritti. In ALT1, I think it would be clearer to say "Saunders took his job" instead of "he took his job" because the antecedent of "he" is not clear. What do you think? Aside from this minor suggestion, the article is Good To Go. It has been expanded 7-fold. It is long enough and was nominated timely. It is neutral, clearly written and readable, and well sourced. Both hooks are interesting and well sourced. I tend to favor ALT1 because it is a little bit mysterious and intriguing - always good clickbait for a DYK - but both are fine. QPQ is not required because the author has had only four previous DYKs. (After this one QPQ will be required!) Please ping me with your thoughts about "he" vs. "Saunders". -- MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with you on both the preference towards to ALT1 and the modification thereto. As such, I propose:
Thanks for the review MelanieN and let me know if you need anything else on this. I'm still learning the ropes on reviewing other users' submissions, so I appreciate the clear explanations you and others have provided in your reasoning. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved with ALT2. Nice work. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image?

[edit]

Hey, @Pbritti! Do we know why this image isn't in the public domain? If it was painted before 1926, it should be. —valereee (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t a clue. I wasn’t the one who selected the image or added it to Wikimedia. I’m assuming it’s public domain but it appears to have been pulled from a William & Mary-owned site that isn’t public domain, leading to the erroneous labeling. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]