Template:Did you know nominations/Fence Cutting Wars
- 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 HalfGig talk 13:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Fence Cutting Wars
[edit]- ... that the Fence Cutting Wars caused more than 20 million dollars of damage in Texas by 1883?
Moved to mainspace/created by Amkloewy (talk). Self nominated at 02:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC).
First of all, I'd like to note that this article was moved to the mainspace on November 25 and not nominated for DYK until December 6. However, because this is the first article to be created and nominated by Amkloewy, I'd like to ask the community to make an exception and not simply flunk this article on account of the time elapsed between its move into the mainspace and its DYK nomination.
- The article is more than long enough and free of any apparent policy issues (the article is neutral and apparently well cited). However, I do not have access to the books and articles that are used as citations, so I am accepting all of them in good faith. This means that I am also unable to check for copyright violations. Also, there are a handful of sentences dispersed throughout the article that are not supported by footnotes/inline citations. One other potential issue is that the references in the "Works cited" section don't have ISBNs, which could (probably should) be added.
- The hook is short enough, interesting, neutral, and cited in the article (this is the only reference that I am able to independently verify, at texashistory.unt.edu). Also, note that QPQ doesn't apply as this is the creator/nominator's first DYK nomination. All in all, this article looks pretty good to me, and as long as the handful of uncited sentences are properly cited I think it will be good to go, accepting the references in good faith. Michael Barera (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, Michael Barera, that's my fault. I had redirected Fence Cutting War (another article which was on a subject that is now a subset of this one, they don't share any text) on the 2nd of december and asked Amkloewy to nominate it, thinking for some reason that the day they asked me about the redirect was the day the article went up. Whoops. :( I (with a bit of self interest) agree with letting this one slide. I can do the QPQ nom if that will help. Protonk (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, Protonk. The only real issue holding up my vouching for this nomination is the lack of citations for numerous sentences in the article. I'd also love to see ISBNs added to the book references, and I'd be willing to chip in on that front. Michael Barera (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Michael Barera: Out of curiosity, which claims need more specific sourcing? From what I've seen, the article looks pretty well sourced (inc. page numbers which aren't requited but are handy). Protonk (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Protonk:
Sentences/claims that don't appear to be properly cited:"The conflict was worse in Texas because the state entered the union in possession of its own lands, so people felt that their right to public access was assured – the land was for everyone to share." ("Texas" subsection)"Local newspapers lined up either for or against the fence cutters." ("Texas" subsection)"Property owners were ordered to remove fences placed across property they did not own, provide gates every three miles, and keep the gates in good repair. By the mid 1880s, large-scale fence cutting in Texas had essentially ended." ("Texas" subsection)"The fence cutting movement that broke out was primarily led by smaller-scale Mexicano farmers." ("New Mexico" subsection)"These conflicts turned violent, with fence-cuttings, shootings, and the burning of a farm." ("New Mexico" subsection)
- Everything else looks good to me, accepting the references in good faith, as I previously noted. Michael Barera (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Update: Sorry, I have incorrectly been holding DYK nominations to a standard more appropriate for GA nominations, not to the lesser "one inline citation per paragraph" threshold prescribed in Rule D2. Sorry for the confusion. This means that...
I am accepting this nomination in good faith. Sorry for the confusion. Michael Barera (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Protonk:
- @Michael Barera: Out of curiosity, which claims need more specific sourcing? From what I've seen, the article looks pretty well sourced (inc. page numbers which aren't requited but are handy). Protonk (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, Protonk. The only real issue holding up my vouching for this nomination is the lack of citations for numerous sentences in the article. I'd also love to see ISBNs added to the book references, and I'd be willing to chip in on that front. Michael Barera (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
