Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph P. Allyn

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Joseph P. Allyn

(

)

... that the discoveries of Judge Joseph Pratt Allyn were published under the name "Putnam"?

Reviewed: Liza Dalby

Created/expanded by Allen3 (talk). Self nom at 14:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Alt 1: ... that the discoveries of Judge Joseph Pratt Allyn were published under the name "Putnam"?

I'm just going to go ahead and propose this. If Allen has any objections, he can say so, but i'm fine with

this one off, with good faith on the offline sources. Silver seren^C 01:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hook review
Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
Silver seren^C	Silver seren^C	Silver seren^C

The citation is accepted in good faith, but the interest isn't really there for me. Maybe a few words of elaboration in the hook on what kind of discoveries he made? Silver seren^C 01:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The hook, as written, is intended to suggest Allyn was publishing Discovery (law) related documents under a nom de plume. I can not speak for circumstances elsewhere, but such an action is out of the ordinary in the United States. Providing the requested explanation defeats the hook's "hookiness" by removing the need to click the article link for the explanation. Please read User:Balloonman/DYK hooks for additional information on the process of writing good hooks and an explanation as to why adding too much information to a hook works against the hook's purpose.

One change that can be easily made is replacing "discoveries" with "findings". This would provide a stronger suggestion of legal documents but was originally avoided because it uses a less common meaning of "findings" (things found) to describe the contents of the newspaper article Allyn wrote. --Allen3 ^talk 03:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

See, I wouldn't have gotten that from the hook and the hook itself, as it is now, wouldn't excite me enough to click into it. I think this would be easily rectified, however, by just linking the word "discoveries" to Discovery (law), which is what it is referring to, as you said. If you agree with that being done, then I would be perfectly fine with accepting the interest part. Silver seren^C 03:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Article review
Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
Silver seren^C	Silver seren^C	Silver seren^C	Silver seren^C	Silver seren^C	Silver seren^C	Silver seren^C

Article looks like it checks out fine. Just that interest bit with the hook needs to be fixed. Silver seren^C 01:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)