Template:Did you know nominations/Dolly's Brae conflict

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: rejected by North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The article still has two paragraphs in its Context section that are uncited, and the article has not been edited since 22 October 2016 (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Dolly's Brae conflict

(

)

... that although it resulted in their activities being legally curtailed, the Orange Order still celebrates the Dolly's Brae conflict?

Created/expanded by EricthePinko (talk). Self-nominated at 16:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC).

New enough and long enough. It has adequate inline citations. However, the hook needs to be verified. The only online source in the article is not adequate for verification. Arius1998 (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- This should do it pp. 253-54: link Please let me know if not. EricthePinko (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

- Hook is simple enough and verified as per request (despite the requirement of special access to the file presented). I think this is adequate enough for DYK. Keep it up. Arius1998 (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Great. Cheers for reviewing my entry btw!

Several paragraphs lack any cites at all, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Does background info need citations? Other than that I can only see one paragraph without citations, the first paragraph in the aftermath section.EricthePinko (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. You could add cites from the relevant articles on the background history. Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Reconsidering this review, I did notice that there has not been much improvement in citations since a week ago. Please improve the overall composition of the article so as to suffice the needed citations, especially for the hook to be displayed. The red links, if any, should be corrected as well. Thanks for the heads up, Yoninah. Arius1998 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There have been no edits to the article since Yoninah pointed out that the sourcing is inadequate. Marking for closure. If EricthePinko should supply new sourcing and reply here before the nomination is closed, the review could continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)