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) 15:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Overall: Expanded more than 5X. Well cited throughout. Paraphrase check via Google search reveals no copyvio. The sole problem with this nom is that the hooks need to contain their quoted facts in a single sentence followed by a cite or cites. Once this is done, nom is GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Georgejdorner: I have never been asked to do that and I have done scores of DYKs. The information is cited by a source immediately following each statement. It makes zero sense to put the information in a single sentence as she founded the order in 1833 and did not found the school until a decade later in another state and it did not become the university until 30 years after that. This sentence is cited "On 1 November 1833, Clarke founded the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary"[5] it is combined with this sentence which is also cited "By September 1843, the rest of the sisters headed west,[5] bringing their piano[1]" for hook 1. The founding information is combined with this sentence "Though teaching among the native tribes never materialized, the women had established a school for settlers' children, called St. Mary's Academy"[4] and this one "In 1881, St. Mary's Academy was relocated to the present site of Clarke University..."[8]. Chronologically it makes no sense to put a history that spans 50 years into a single sentence. The rule I am aware of states that the verification must immediately follow the claims, which they do. Is this a new rule that all the facts must be in a single sentence? SusunW (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Rechecking the situation, I realize I am reflecting past practice as it has been applied to some of my past DYK noms instead of any written rule I can locate. I am actually uncertain about this matter, and will defer to any other reviewer with more experience.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The hook facts can be taken from anywhere in the article and put into one hook; the important thing is that each hook fact is cited inline where it appears. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah, can you please tell where that is written? I should like to be able to point to it next time someone tells me MY hook has to be a duly cited single sentence.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And, SusunW, I have removed my question mark in the review, and you should be GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Georgejdorner. Nice working with you. I always ask if I don't know. WP guidelines aren't always clear to me (nor easy to find). The three I pinged above are experienced at DYK and usually pretty quick to respond. SusunW (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
b) Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact.
When I review a hook with multiple facts, I search through the article for where each fact appears and note if it has an inline citation. Then I note that in my review ("Hook facts verified and cited inline"). I can't understand how anyone can insist on all the hook facts appearing in the same sentence. Yoninah (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I had some revieweer early on in my DYK career that insisted that was the "same sentence" standard. I have followed it for more than 50 DYKs.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW, Georgejdorner, Victuallers, and Yoninah: I didn't see this until just now. Sorry. Here's my take on it. I have frequently approved hooks where parts of the hook facts are in different locations in the article. As long as it all has a citation at the end of the sentence where those are located. Even with the rules quote above, that rule doesn't say "all facts about the hook must be in one place". I figure as long as the hook and the article meet all the criteria, it's no big deal. The aim of getting it right, is if a question comes up on its accuracy, if it's all in the article and sourced, even in different places, then it's OK. That's all that counts - Is it accurate? Is it in the article? Is it cited where mentioned in the article? If all those are yes, the hook works. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Added "helped" to the hook, as she moved the piano with other sisters who accompanied her, according to the source. Yoninah (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Expanded more than 5X. Well cited throughout. Paraphrase check via Google search reveals no copyvio. The sole problem with this nom is that the hooks need to contain their quoted facts in a single sentence followed by a cite or cites. Once this is done, nom is GTG.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)