Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Herb Connolly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn

Herb Connolly

[edit]

Created by Hirolovesswords (talk). Self nominated at 03:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC).

  • New enough, long enough. Nice article, except that the hook says he "forgot" to vote: no doubt this is echoed exactly in the offline USA Today reference, but the online reference (Cape Cod Times) says he "did not bother" to vote. To save time on hair-splitting discussions, please could we amend the hook to:
Alt 1: ... that Massachusetts Governor's Councilor Herb Connolly lost by one vote in an election he did not bother to vote in?
Storye book (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Added online reference stating that Connolly forgot to vote. [1] --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • After finding better references, I believe the following hook is more appropriate.--Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Alt 2: ... that Massachusetts Governor's Councilor Herb Connolly lost an election in which he did not vote for himself by one vote? (Note added by Storye book: Alt 2 was written by Hirolovesswords, but was unsigned)
Note: Alt 2 would be fine in my opinion, but the syntax "vote for himself by one vote" is awkward. Alt 3 is intended to give exactly the same meaning as Alt 2 but in clear language. Storye book (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
New QPQ needed. 1920 Alabama Crimson Tide football team was not a valid review. Editor passed a nomination on a 2009 article that was not 5X expanded. Lack of details in the "review" bring into question what DYK criteria was checked.— Maile (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
QPQ must've been good enough for an administrator because the nomination was promoted. If you have problems with my nomination of another page or pages, please keep the discussion there.--Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • New QPQ has been submitted; new reviewer needed to check it and the ALT hooks, and also to check neutrality and for close paraphrasing, neither of which were mentioned in the original review. While ALT3 is an improvement on ALT2, it's still not quite right; at a minimum, "omitted" needs to be replaced by a better word, perhaps "failed". BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd rather withdraw my nomination than continue on with this process. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)