Template:Did you know nominations/Kelayres massacre
- 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 Montanabw(talk) 06:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Kelayres massacre
[edit]- ... that on November 5, 1934, participants in a political rally in Kelayres, Pennsylvania were gunned down as they marched past the house of the local opposition party boss?
ALT1:... that in 1934 a Pennsylvania political party boss walked out of prison after being convicted of voluntary manslaughter and given three life sentences following the shooting of several people in an opposition party parade outside his house?- Comment: I think I might like ALT1 even better than the first hook I wrote... but I'd like to hear other editors' thoughts.
- Comment: The massacre happened in 1934. Bruno escaped in 1936. He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in his first trial, and of first-degree murder in his third trial. (Not "re"trials, but separate trials for separate murder victims.)
ALT2:... that a 1934 Pennsylvania small-town school dispute turned murderous at an election eve rally, and may have tipped the statewide elections the next day?ALT3:... that the Kelayres massacre, a 1934 shooting attack on an election eve rally in a small Pennsylvania town, may have tipped the statewide elections the next day?ALT4:... that the Kelayres massacre may have tipped the Pennsylvania 1934 elections?- Comment: I am likin' ALT3 the more times I read it. It's got punch, and I think will draw a huge crowd of viewers to the article. Once it gets reviewed. Which will be... soon-ish? Maybe? KDS4444Talk 06:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Created by Choor monster (talk). Nominated by KDS4444(talk) at 21:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
- Note: KDS4444 has also recently completed a DYK QPQ review of another nomination, Hildegard Rütgers. KDS4444Talk 11:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The first hook isn't really stated clearly outside the lead (where it isn't cited immediately after but at the end of the paragraph). Alt 1 is rather misleading as the article doesn't say he "walked out of prison". Alts 2 through 4 aren't stated in the article, rather that a specific candidate attributes his loss to the event (also, looking at the article as cited for the statement, p66 doesn't contain the information cited, rather it is p64. I have changed it in the article). If you would like I think the following would be a good hook:
*ALT5: ... that 1934 Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate, William A. Schnader, attributed his loss to the Kelayres massacre?- If you'd rather the first hook, you should cite it in the article. If you like the suggested hook or to suggest another, you can comment below and I'll follow up. Wugapodes (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, then, sticking with the first hook for the moment, you say that the hook "isn't really stated clearly outside the lead". Moving the location of the citation is pro forma, of course, but I thought that the fact that it was cited and was in the lead pretty much covered things as far as DYK goes, and thought the content of the article made it clear that this event unfolded just as the hook suggested it did (i.e., no one reading the article after following the hook is going to say to themselves, "Hey, I thought those people were gunned down outside the guy's house! That isn't what happened at all!"). Can you clarify for me what would need to be done to the article to make it more suitable? Am glad to make any changes you might suggest, and thank you, Wugapodes, for reviewing the DYK proposal! KDS4444Talk 00:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- @KDS4444: Sorry if I was unclear, and looking at it now, the symbol I used probably didn't help. My bad. I'm 100% fine with the original hook, the comments were less things that need to be improved before acceptance than they were general comments. you're correct in everything you said, it's fine that it's said in the lead, it's fine that it's not paraphrased from a line in the text, etc. I chose {{DYK?no}} because you seemed to want alt3, which I wouldn't accept. In hindsight, I probably should have gone with {{DYK?}} (or just accepted the original hook), because I wanted your opinion on alt5 as a replacement for alt3, not because the original hook wouldn't work. Sorry about the confusion I caused.
- Anyway, I guess the question is would you rather the original hook or alt5 to appear (or suggest another hook to review)? Wugapodes (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think I am good with my original hook (ALT5 is certainly fine, of course, though I think the mention of the political candidate, esp. before the massacre, distracts from the appalling nature of the shooting itself— so let's go with the original hook and call it a day, yes?). KDS4444Talk 06:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I just got your ping from the talk page post. Really sorry about that. I took a trip from the 15th to the 18th and I guess this slipped off my watch page without me noticing. Sorry about leaving you in the dark. I've approved the original hook below. Sorry for the hold up. Wugapodes (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think I am good with my original hook (ALT5 is certainly fine, of course, though I think the mention of the political candidate, esp. before the massacre, distracts from the appalling nature of the shooting itself— so let's go with the original hook and call it a day, yes?). KDS4444Talk 06:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, then, sticking with the first hook for the moment, you say that the hook "isn't really stated clearly outside the lead". Moving the location of the citation is pro forma, of course, but I thought that the fact that it was cited and was in the lead pretty much covered things as far as DYK goes, and thought the content of the article made it clear that this event unfolded just as the hook suggested it did (i.e., no one reading the article after following the hook is going to say to themselves, "Hey, I thought those people were gunned down outside the guy's house! That isn't what happened at all!"). Can you clarify for me what would need to be done to the article to make it more suitable? Am glad to make any changes you might suggest, and thank you, Wugapodes, for reviewing the DYK proposal! KDS4444Talk 00:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
