Template:Did you know nominations/1954 Series (banknotes)
- 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 Allen3 talk 12:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
1954 Series (banknotes)
[edit]- ... that the 1954 Series of Canadian banknotes were known as the "Devil's Head" series?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Omi Shrine
- Comment: I deleted copyvio text from the article, then wrote a new article because only about one paragraph remained. I'm assuming this satisfies DYK criteria, per point A4 of the supplementary article length rules Mindmatrix 20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I've included ALT1 below for consideration for the April Fool's Day DYK Mindmatrix 21:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
5x expanded by Mindmatrix (talk). Self nominated at 20:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
- ALT1 (April Fool's Day):
... that the "Devil's Head" 1954 Series of Canadian banknotes contained the grinning demon of Queen Elizabeth II?
- I'd go with Alt1 for April 1st. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Grinning demon validated by Bank of Canada citation.Canuckle (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1 (April Fool's Day):
Full review needed, and preferably soon so this is eligible for April Fools. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2 (April Fool's Day):
... that the Bank of Canada darkened its engravings of Queen Elizabeth after its "Devil's Head" Series of banknotes displayed her horns too prominently?
- works better for me, has better phrasing, and is well-cited in text. If anyone thinks the Brits would get tetchy, you can sneer quote the "horns" bit. All the same:
pending better images on the page. The existing one is far too small and illegible and this is one of those worthless-without-a-picture articles. — LlywelynII 16:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- works better for me, has better phrasing, and is well-cited in text. If anyone thinks the Brits would get tetchy, you can sneer quote the "horns" bit. All the same:
- ALT2 (April Fool's Day):
- Full review still needed. Have struck the two April Fools Day hooks since the last AFD set just hit the main page; proceeding with the original hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw, did you review the basics? This nomination had never had an actual review, just hook discussion, so everything from age and length to neutrality and close paraphrasing still needed to be done. All you mention are issues (presumably hook issues) and article images. Please specify what was checked in your review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Forget it, was just trying to help, these complicated ones aren't worth my time, I'm not going to even try any more. I'll do my qpqs and maybe make more prep sets. Do you guys who see the problems ever actually do a review yourself? Seriously? Montanabw(talk) 05:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I went into the article, I reviewed the images, I reviewed the source for the "Devil's head" thing, I reworded a bit of the article itself to make it clearer. I thought the hook and other crap had already been completed and that a backup review was needed, not an original one. I thought LlywelynII covered the basics. Really, a template or something here would actually be useful, check the boxes on the simple stuff. This wouldn't get me a qpq anyway from what you've said in the past, so I am focusing my energies elsewhere - creating actual articles and that sort of thing. Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'll take that as a no, you didn't. And yes, I do.
- Full review still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't get why this DYK has languished, as this is not a particularly difficult, long, or complex article. If the issue is the offline sources, I just did a quick search on the Google News Archive search and found them:
- Canada's new bank notes (Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph. 9 September 1954.)
- Canadian scenes to be portrayed for banknotes (Montreal Gazette. 22 April 1953)
- Canada's new bills (Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph. Halifax Chronicle-Herald. 10 September 1954)
- Canada issues new bank notes (Shawinigan Standard. 2 June 1954)
- Different hair-do for bank notes (Toledo Blade. Herald Tribune News Service. 27 March 1956)
- No shit, I agree, but apparently my review was inadequate because I only addressed the various concerns, so I'm not going to bang my head against the wall. (sigh) My advice is to ping a friend who has done previous DKYs and have them finish it. Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate the comment, but I'd rather have someone with whom I have no association review my DYK nominations. Mindmatrix 14:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm cool with someone else taking this one. I frankly don't even pay attention to who the nominator/creator is, I just look for something to review that I find interesting. I interact with so many people on-wiki, half the time I can't even recall if or when I've interacted with someone unless the interaction really jumps out at me as a 1 or a 10 on the wikistress scale ;). Montanabw(talk) 22:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Reiterating that full review still needed despite the above discussion. The problem is that any discussion after the "review again" icon leads people to think that it doesn't need a new reviewer's attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Review: not quite expanded 5x went from 1829 chars to 8935, but its close enough 4.88x. Currently its big enough, correct credit, neutral, and fully referenced. No copyright problems found in text. Original hook is short enough, and is in article, cited and confirmed. Good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
