Template:Did you know nominations/Blessing in disguise (idiom)
- 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) 00:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Blessing in disguise (idiom)
"Blessings in Disguise", 1865.
- ... that in 1865, Confederate losses during the American Civil War were seen as "blessings in disguise" (cartoon pictured)?
- Reviewed: Laidlaw Purves
Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 12:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC).
Article is new enough, hook is interesting, most citations check, (AGF on subscription source), images are in the Public Domain, and, other than quotations and titles, there is no close paraphrasing, while the QPQ is pending. However, the citations need work, per url links. There are just too many bare url addresses mixed in with the text and in the references section. Some of the url addresses link to books. The url for citations [9] and [10] should use templates as was done in citation [11]. Also, page numbers should appear in the reference section when books are used as sources. As an alternative, you could use the open url with a label, enclosed in [brackets]. For example, Citation [10], using the existing url, could look like this: Chinese-English Classical Idiom Stories, pp.165-166 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will fix them shortly. I didn't want to miss the deadline. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers: Everything should be OK now. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks much better. Mind you, the DYK criteria doesn't say anything about citation and source formatting, but in this case I thought a little organization was called for. All criteria check. QPQ now satisfied. Nice article. Good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers: Everything should be OK now. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
