Template:Did you know nominations/Dawpool (house)
- 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 12:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Dawpool (house)
[edit]- ... that the country house Dawpool was built for Thomas Henry Ismay, owner of the White Star Line, between 1882 and 1886, but it was demolished in 1927?
- ALT1:... that when the country house Dawpool was demolished in 1927, parts of it were re-used in other houses, including one in Portmeirion?
- Reviewed: Suquamish Museum
Created by Peter I. Vardy (talk). Self nominated at 17:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
Article created on December 17, 3,013 characters. Article is neutral, cites in-line sources well, attributes quotes about the house to their authors in-line with WP:INTEXT. Both hooks lie under the 200 character mark, are interesting. According to [1], Ismay did not found White Star Line, but purchased it for £1,000. I would prefer "in" be changed to "from" in the first hook, as it's a year range. Source supports first hook. Source also supports second hook. No images; the reviewed article links to a review by another user. I'm putting this on hold until nominator reviews another hook, and nominator fixes Ismay's role in relation to White Star. Seattle (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fair point. I've amended the article and the original hook. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter I. Vardy: Have you made any progress on reviewing another hook? Seattle (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Seattle: Not sure what more you want me to do. I'm OK with any of the hooks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter I. Vardy: I want you to review a proposed did you know hook article per the QPQ rules as established under Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria rule No. 5. You never edited the Suquamish Museum proposed hook; can you show me where you reviewed it? Don't be so brash. Seattle (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Seattle: Not sure what more you want me to do. I'm OK with any of the hooks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Seattle:Actually, having over 500 successful nominations for DYK, I am aware of the QPQ rules. You ask where I did the review; try here. And if you look here you will see that the hook appeared on the Main Page on 21 December. From your user name and user page I guess that we come from opposite sides of the Atlantic, and maybe we are divided by our "common" language. Perhaps not where you are, but certainly here the word "brash" is a bit on the rude side. Wiktionary defines it in the following terms: impetuous, rash, insensitive, tactless, impudent, and shameless. Is it the same where you are? Of which of these were you accusing me? In reality, I think you made a mistake by looking at the wrong nomination, and in this season of goodwill to all men, I send you best Christmas wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter I. Vardy: No, it's the same here. I'm accusing you of being rash and tactless if you believe that I wouldn't check the QPQ hook required for your submission, especially after 500+ reviews. Please link to the appropriate hook in the future; your insistence that you reviewed Suquamish Museum, from the incorrect link, led me to call you brash. As for this hook, it's a
for all three hooks, with the best-fit to be judged by the promoter. I did not make the mistake; you originally linked to the incorrect nomination. Regardless, the hook now passes, with the correct QPQ verified. I hope you have enjoyed your Christmas crackers. Seattle (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Seattle:OK I made a mistake, for which I apologise. But that does not entitle you to question my knowledge of the DYK rules, and it certainly does not entitle you to make disparaging personal remarks. If someone makes a mistake, it is correct and courteous to point that out. But is is not acceptable to take criticism to a personal level. Thank you for completing the review, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter I. Vardy: No, it's the same here. I'm accusing you of being rash and tactless if you believe that I wouldn't check the QPQ hook required for your submission, especially after 500+ reviews. Please link to the appropriate hook in the future; your insistence that you reviewed Suquamish Museum, from the incorrect link, led me to call you brash. As for this hook, it's a
- It's a commonplace that houses slated for demolition get cannibalized for parts.
- ALT2 ... that Thomas Henry Ismay's wife said that Dawpool had "served its purpose in keeping [her husband] amused for fifteen years"?
- EEng (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Reiterating tick given by reviewer on December 29 in the middle of the approving comment—approval was "for all three hooks"—to make it easier for promoter to see and select it. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)