Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham Lincoln, what would you do?
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Abraham Lincoln, what would you do?
[edit]
... that the United States of America asks, "Abraham Lincoln, what would you do?" (pictured) with outstretched arms?
- ALT1:... that the composition "Abraham Lincoln, what would you do?" (pictured) was intended to build support for U.S. involvement in World War I?
- Reviewed: Bahrain–United Kingdom relations
- Comment: Article created in userspace on 30 July 2014; moved to mainspace on 3 August 2014. I'd personally prefer to use the first hook or some variation of it because I just think it's more "hooky" than the latter.
Created by I JethroBT (talk). Self nominated at 22:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC).
- Absolutely, the original hook is the better one, though let me suggest some "less is more"
- ALT2 ... that the United States asked, "Abraham Lincoln, what would you do?" (pictured)?
No need to link United States. EEng (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree in theory it's a good hook, but I don't see the hook fact in the article. (Full review still needed, this is just a drive-by comment.) 18:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to treat a hook like this as a fact per se, especially since the United States can't really ask anything, especially of a statue. It's kind of like saying "The Mona Lisa is smiling" -- a picture can't actually smile, but we'd overlook that. EEng (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
review needed EEng (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is new enough but the article has 1369 characters readable prose that fails the criteria for DYK nominations, every nomination must have atleast 1,500 characters in readable prose, and the nomination template is not in the article's talk page either. The original hook is not in the article though, so i humbly choose ALT1. The photo is also suitable for public domain as it's more than fifty years old, the article is also adequately referenced and there are no paraphrasing issues were found and other copyright violations, please address the following problems so we can finish this hook faster as it's now old. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to treat a hook like this as a fact per se, especially since the United States can't really ask anything, especially of a statue. It's kind of like saying "The Mona Lisa is smiling" -- a picture can't actually smile, but we'd overlook that. EEng (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agree in theory it's a good hook, but I don't see the hook fact in the article. (Full review still needed, this is just a drive-by comment.) 18:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Full review needed by competent reviewer, who should recheck everything. According to DYKcheck, which is the gold standard for DYK, the article has 1594 prose characters, not 1369; photos are not in the public domain after 50 years in the United States, etc. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
New enough, long enough (takes off shoes to enable more advanced counting; over 20 characters according to my count; 1597 according to DYK check); neutral; assuming no close paraphrasing, copyvio or plagiarism as I can't check all of the sources; ALT1 is cited, ALT2 fact isn't cited exactly, but can be easily derived from the article; I'd prefer ALT2. Image is just about clear enough at DYK size and is free to use; QPQ done; citations where required (though the LOC ref was used to support the tempo when that information does not appear there, so a ref will need adding for that). Ready to go. (Now it all hinges on whether I am judged a competent reviewer or not; please take into consideration that I was dedicated enough to use my toes when counting the characters; I'm not some lazy "fingers-only" counter). Belle (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)