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 JollyΩJanner 06:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Overall: Checked core criteria on this promising article by a new editor. QPQ not required, as this is this editor's second DYK nom. I ran an Earwig check, which reported 22.5% chance of paraphrase. Although I am new at using this tool, an eyeball check of highlighted repeated phrases indicates a bit of rewrite is needed. The other problem with the nomination is the hooks. Hook ALT0 is in the lead with no cite to justify it; the factoid in the hook appears nowhere in the body, nor does ALT1 appear anywhere. The lead is meant as a precis of the body of the article, so the lead needs a rewrite to reflect that. A minor point is that the hook's link to the article nominated should be bolded. This advice may seem like a bit to tackle, but you can probably correct everything more quickly than I have outlined it. I will carry this nom on my watchlist, and am available to assist you. Please do not despair; after your first few DYK noms, you will catch the knack. Have you thought about designating this nom for Black History Month? I believe it would be a terrific addition, especially since it would be a non-American entry.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I've changed the ALT0 hook to read similar to the first line of the article, as well as bolding the subject. I think that's fixed that, let me know if otherwise! Paraphrasing is another matter, I've gone through he article a few times myself and I'm struggling to see any. I've used a couple of article rewriting tools and they just throw up gibberish. Any pointers? Thanks for the suggesting that the article would be good for Black History Month, I'll be certain to nominate it during that period.Factorylad (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I did a proper job of bolding the subject as an example for you.
You might want to look at WP:LEAD. The present lead is unsupported by the body of the article, instead of being a summary of the body. Also, WP:HOOK could be helpful for correcting your hooks. A DYK hook is required to have a cite following the fact(s) in the article.
Lastly, if you click on Review or comment at the top of this nomination, the DYK Toolbox will appear in the upper right corner. One of those tools is Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Open it, and enter this article's title to be checked. In a minute or so, Earwig's tool will highlight paraphrases in your article. Swap in a few synonyms, do a bit of rearranging, and you are home free.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, Black History Month. As the nominator, it is your choice to designate this article for running then. Once the nomination passed, it would be held until February.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. I've expanded the lead and used the (vey useful) Earwig tool to eliminate as much paraphrasing as I could. It's now down to 6.5% now.Factorylad (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The new lead is a great one, giving the reader the reasons Kent is notable. However, because the lead is a summary of the article's body, the same information should be given in the body, preferably with more detail or explanation. Then the info in the body has to be cited to be eligible for for a hook. This change is all you need to pass the review.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I've made some further adjustments to the lead and inserted a source citation at the end of the first sentence that supports the hook facts. There is no requirement that the source citation must be in the body of the article; indeed, many DYK submissions are all lead and no body. WP:LEAD, while part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, is not a requirement for DYK. It is, however, a requirement for GA status, should the authors ever wish to pursue that. However, I'm troubled by the use of the Guardian source, which is a letter to the editor by Robin Smith. Even though the paper printed it, I don't think it can be considered sufficiently reliable, since there's no guarantee that it was fact-checked. Indeed, it contains a significant error: it was Kent's father that arrived as a seaman; Kent was born in Britain. The Ramshaw source, or one of the others, may be able to fill the gap. Also, as Britain and the UK are not synonymous, the UK fact would need to be added to the article and sourced for ALT1 to be adequately supported. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I've just removed the Guardian source, and struck ALT1 due to the UK vs. Britain issue noted above. That satisfies the issues I had, and I believe that, as WP:LEAD is not a DYK requirement, Georgejdorner's issues are all settled as well. Georgejdorner, can you please continue (or conclude) your review? I think this should definitely be moved to the special occasion section for Black History Month, which should help insure a reasonably prompt promotion, since that month has already begun. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for drifting out of touch with this nomination. It is obviously GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Any opinion on what to link in the hook? Britain is a disambiguation page. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the country at the time of John Kent. Honestly, removing the link all together may be the best option here, since countries aren't normally linked and the Independent doesn't do a great job of clarifying this important fact. JollyΩJanner 04:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, unlinking Britain is the right way to go here, so I have been bold and done it. Edwardx (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Checked core criteria on this promising article by a new editor. QPQ not required, as this is this editor's second DYK nom. I ran an Earwig check, which reported 22.5% chance of paraphrase. Although I am new at using this tool, an eyeball check of highlighted repeated phrases indicates a bit of rewrite is needed. The other problem with the nomination is the hooks. Hook ALT0 is in the lead with no cite to justify it; the factoid in the hook appears nowhere in the body, nor does ALT1 appear anywhere. The lead is meant as a precis of the body of the article, so the lead needs a rewrite to reflect that. A minor point is that the hook's link to the article nominated should be bolded. This advice may seem like a bit to tackle, but you can probably correct everything more quickly than I have outlined it. I will carry this nom on my watchlist, and am available to assist you. Please do not despair; after your first few DYK noms, you will catch the knack. Have you thought about designating this nom for Black History Month? I believe it would be a terrific addition, especially since it would be a non-American entry.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for drifting out of touch with this nomination. It is obviously GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)