Template:Did you know nominations/Conyers Farm, Edmund C. Converse
- 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 Victuallers (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Conyers Farm, Edmund C. Converse
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that the 1,481-acre (599 ha) Conyers Farm was unoccupied for 15 years after the death of founder Edmund C. Converse?
Created by EricEnfermero (talk). Self-nominated at 02:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC).
new enough created on 24 May, long enough at 4,385 characters, interesting hook in a neutrally written article. QPQ also done. However there are two issues, Notable residents section has no incline citations and whilst it is like that this cannot go on the main page, also I've read and reread the source for the hook which is number 5 in references and it doesn't specifically say it lay unoccupied. It cites year of death, in disrepair and was maintained by Bankers Trust and that it was bought in 1936 but I cannot see where it says unoccupied. @EricEnfermero: can you show me where it says unoccupied.Blethering Scot 15:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- On look at other sources it is actually sourced, but in lead not the main article. I have therefore moved it down into main article as should be sourced there and not in lead. However the Notable residents section is still unsourced and must be fixed or I would suggest removed altogether before this is approved.Blethering Scot 15:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Addressed those issues. Does Edmund C. Converse look okay? EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Meant to ping Blethering Scot. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Had looked at the second article and seen no issues, however i didn't realise until now that it was also a new page. Seen as it is i will review it as well. New enough created on 23 May, long enough at 4,205 characters, neutrally written, decent sources and hook is sourced in this article as well. You have addressed the issues I raised. This is good to go.Blethering Scot 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
