Template:Did you know nominations/High School of Montreal
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
High School of Montreal
[edit]
Fire at the High School of Montreal on November 28, 1890
- ... that after a bitter dispute over its curriculum in 1890, the High School of Montreal was burned down (fire pictured)? Source: John Kalbfleisch, From the archives: Classic conflict bitterly divided Montreal school in Montreal Gazette dated November 29, 2017.
- Reviewed: Pecorino di Carmasciano
Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 04:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC).
This substantial article is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are sourced, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reopened based on numerous issues raised at WT:DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I should be most grateful to know what your idea is now, The Rambling Man? There is nothing wrong with this hook, and I see no reason for anyone to be put to any further trouble. For the avoidance of the doubt which is in no one's mind I have added the helpful information found by MB. Are you expecting Cwmhiraeth to do another review? Do you want someone to link the template on the nominations page again? What is it now? Moonraker (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, looks okay to me now. Of course I can't verify the recently added information, and it still reads odd to me, to locate the buildings and then specify the street (again) of the buildings which burned down, but at least the gaping hole in the article has been satisfactorily covered, the fair use images removed and the date error in the hook fixed, so I'm cool with it, a shame it took so much blood, sweat and tears to fix such fundamental issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I should be most grateful to know what your idea is now, The Rambling Man? There is nothing wrong with this hook, and I see no reason for anyone to be put to any further trouble. For the avoidance of the doubt which is in no one's mind I have added the helpful information found by MB. Are you expecting Cwmhiraeth to do another review? Do you want someone to link the template on the nominations page again? What is it now? Moonraker (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that after a bitter dispute over its curriculum in 1890, the High School of Montreal was destroyed by fire (pictured)?
- Repeating my tick, this time for ALT1. One source states "fire that destroyed the High School of Montreal that day" and the other "set the buildings on fire, burning them to the ground". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Many thanks for attending to that, Cwmhiraeth, and for me ALT1 is slightly better, as discussed elsewhere. I have had a message on my talk page to say that the nomination is incomplete, so if there is anything further to be done for this nomination to proceed, perhaps The Rambling Man would be so kind as to see to it? Moonraker (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think that TRM would do that, it's not his style at all. I have added it back onto the nomination page, a thing that whoever pulled it failed to do. It should be OK now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not interested in tidying up after poor reviews and poor promotions, no. That's not my style. My style is to continually improve Wikipedia, both by substantial content creation and the minor fixing of anything I can easily help with that's on or going to the main page. When hooks are pulled, it's not a "failure" that they're not put back on noms, it's a failing of the process that allowed the hooks to get that far in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think that TRM would do that, it's not his style at all. I have added it back onto the nomination page, a thing that whoever pulled it failed to do. It should be OK now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Many thanks for attending to that, Cwmhiraeth, and for me ALT1 is slightly better, as discussed elsewhere. I have had a message on my talk page to say that the nomination is incomplete, so if there is anything further to be done for this nomination to proceed, perhaps The Rambling Man would be so kind as to see to it? Moonraker (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)