Template:Did you know nominations/116th Infantry Regiment (United States)
- 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) 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
116th Infantry Regiment (United States)
[edit]- ... that the US Army's 116th Infantry Regiment has battle honors for fighting against the United States? Source: For Confederate service. See [1]
Improved to Good Article status by Kges1901 (talk). Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 11:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC).
Initial Review:
Article:
Newness: 
— Promoted 3 days before nomination.
Length: — 42 kb.
Copyvio Check: ? — 75% with the source given.
Neutrality:
Grammar:
Sources:
Hook:
Length: — Fewer than 200 characters.
Content: — Interesting, and appealing fact
Neutrality:
Source: — May need to address copyvio percentage with source.
QPQ:
Overall: 
- Could you please address the 75% plagiarism percentage with [2]. It may be caused by repeated use of proper nouns.
--Toreightyone (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- The material is from the United States Army Institute of Heraldry, which is acknowledged in the article. Unfortunately, the TIOH site is currently down. [3]. There is a copy here: [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it is from the US Army Center of Military History official lineage, making it public domain, though we still need to attribute. The heraldic description is copied from TIOH. It would be difficult to rephrase this material while keeping it accurate and specific, so IMO attribution is the best route. Kges1901 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Upon inspection of the flagged phrases, it does appear all are proper nouns and would be difficult to rephrase; therefore, I have no suspicion of plagiarism. Everything checks out, guys!
Toreightyone (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but am having trouble finding the hook fact in the article. Could you point it out to me? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- The Confederate battle honors are listed in the campaign streamers section. I did not explicitly state that it has Confederate battle honors since if a unit has Confederate lineage it is implied that it has Confederate campaign streamers. Kges1901 (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Kges1901: yes, I understand that it was a Confederate unit, but where does it say battle honours in the article? This section is calling them "campaign participation credits". Yoninah (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- The section is called "Campaign streamers". Campaign streamers are "physical manifestations of battle honours". The latter term is used, because it will be much more widely understood. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- It would be clearer if you rephrase the line under the "Campaign streamers" section to read: The regiment carries battle honours for the following actions. or The regiment carries campaign streamers for the following actions. Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Kges1901: yes, I understand that it was a Confederate unit, but where does it say battle honours in the article? This section is calling them "campaign participation credits". Yoninah (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Upon inspection of the flagged phrases, it does appear all are proper nouns and would be difficult to rephrase; therefore, I have no suspicion of plagiarism. Everything checks out, guys!
This nomination was pulled from the main page after it ran 6.5 of its 12 hours due to hook issues (the full discussion can be seen in the DYK current section here). If that is deemed to be an insufficient time on the main page, then a new hook needs to be created that satisfies the issues that caused the hook to be pulled from the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have modified the hook to reflect information recently added to the article that explicitly supports the hook. Kges1901 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- There were no issues that warranted the hooks' removal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have restored the original hook, and added an ALT1 below with the newly revised wording, so the original promoted hook and Kges1901's modification can both be seen:
- ALT1: ... that the US Army's 116th Infantry Regiment has campaign streamers for fighting against the United States?
- Perhaps Black Kite can confirm that the issues that caused him to remove the hook from the main page have been addressed with ALT1 (and The Rambling Man regarding his objections as well). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm happy if I see, per DYK rules, a sentence in the article with an inline link which specifically states the hook, and doesn't rely on innate understanding of historical warfare. So please tell me here which sentence in the article clearly states the hook, and show me here which citation backs that up, and we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- It says: "The successor 116th Infantry Regiment later received campaign streamers for the engagements that these Civil War units participated in; thus the regiment carries honors earned in fighting against the United States Federal government", which is cited with fn 1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, is that satisfactory? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- I was pinged to come back to this nomination. I agree with Hawkeye7 that there was no reason for this hook to be pulled. I also believe that "battle honors" is a much clearer term than "campaign streamers" for laymen who know nothing about historical warfare. Now that an additional sentence has been added under "Civil war" with the hook fact clearly stated and cited, can we run the original hook? Pinging @Hawkeye7:. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- It says: "The successor 116th Infantry Regiment later received campaign streamers for the engagements that these Civil War units participated in; thus the regiment carries honors earned in fighting against the United States Federal government", which is cited with fn 1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm happy if I see, per DYK rules, a sentence in the article with an inline link which specifically states the hook, and doesn't rely on innate understanding of historical warfare. So please tell me here which sentence in the article clearly states the hook, and show me here which citation backs that up, and we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)