Template:Did you know nominations/Marriage License
- 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 SL93 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Marriage License
- ... that Francis Mahoney was one of Norman Rockwell's models for Marriage License? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/111775070/marriage-license/
- ALT1: ... that Thomas Buechner considers Marriage License to be one of Norman Rockwell's two best paintings?
- ALT2: ... that MAD released a parody of Marriage License in 2004 depicting a gay couple applying for a marriage license?
- ALT3: ... that the clerk in Marriage License was originally supposed to be leaning towards the couple instead of looking uninterested?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bejeweled (song)
Created by Guerillero (talk). Self-nominated at 14:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC).
- Comment: Since this can't run with a picture anyway, how about using a really quirky hook to draw readers' attentions? I suggest some possible variations:
- ALT4 ... that Mo and Joan were paid $50 for their efforts to help produce a Marriage License?
- ALT5 ... that betrothed couple Mo and Joan were paid $50 for helping a painter with his Marriage License?
- ALT6 ... that Mo and Joan received an oil sketch of Marriage License for their wedding?
- I'll admit the other hooks are fine as well, but more "normal". Unsure if the "a" has to be dropped in ALT 4 & 6, some native speaker will know. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII: I did some light copyedits. I dropped the "a" in 6 and corrected the amount that the couple was paid for their efforts. 4 is the funniest. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Guerillero Parlez Moi Since prior review seems to have petered out, here is a review. See my comments. The short version is this: if you want to go with ALT0, I think you're all ready to go, because that has a citation. If you want the other ALTs in the running, as I understand things they should have citations too; is that right?
- @LordPeterII: I did some light copyedits. I dropped the "a" in 6 and corrected the amount that the couple was paid for their efforts. 4 is the funniest. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
QPQ: 
Overall: 
It is in its current state new enough, as it became a Good Article within 10 days of its nomination. It's long enough at 4,816 characters. The page is well-sourced, and I assume good faith for those sources not available online or not clippable. (because the article spans multiple pages, or is too large, etc.) The article reads neutrally, and Earwig detects no probable plagiarism. As for hooks, ALT0 is sourced but none of the others are. I figure that's fine if you decide to just put forward ALT0, but do you want the others in the running? I think ALT0–ALT3 are pretty interesting. I confess I don't get the punchline of ALT4 and ALT6, but ALT5 made me chuckle.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by P-Makoto (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- @P-Makoto: your ping never went through. Alts 0-3 are sourced in the article. Providing a second copy here is not needed. I think alt 5 is sourced as well. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
