Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Wynn-Jones

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Michael Wynn-Jones

[edit]
(
)

5x expanded by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC).

  • This article is a fivefold expansion and is new enough and long enough. Any of the hooks could be used, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Reopened because of the use of non-RS citations in the chosen hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What were the opinions on ALT1 & ALT2? I can't find a non-tabloid source for Wynn-Jones & Smith having the least net wealth. Joseph2302 16:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've also struck ALT0, per the discussion at WT:DYK. The list of net worth of Premier League owners was published by The Daily Mirror, and only sources I can find are just quoting the Mirror's figure. Thus, no definitely reliable sources seem to exist for ALT0. Joseph2302 21:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Adding icon noting an issue, which prevents this as showing up as approved with its prior icon. (There is a discussion around the pulling of this nom at WT:DYK.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to check the ALT hooks and their sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I re-reviewed the article, paying special attention to the hook. The sources are fine for the hook. There are some tabloid sources supporting the "£23 million" figure and related subject matter, but the content seemed reasonable and reliable. Other editors might be concerned about these sources based on their general sensationalist tendencies, so if you can find something else, it might be a good idea. I won't hold up this article, though.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 3family6, since this nomination was previously pulled from prep because of the use of non-RS citations in the chosen hook, we need to be sure any approved hooks are reliably sourced (which means non-tabloid and non-sensationalist). Also, we need more clarity, especially as there are four hooks, but you are talking about "the hook" as if there was only one. Please specify which hook (or hooks) are reliably sourced and interesting and approved by you, so the eventual promoter knows what the valid selections are. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT0 isn't an option, since only British tabloids support the claim. Please specifies which hook(s) you are happy with. Joseph2302 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I realized shortly after I arrived at work that I'd forgotten to specify which hook. I'm approving for ALTs 3 or 4. ALT 4 is the more precise version of Alt 2, and I find alt 1 not as interesting. Either 3 or 4 would work, and they are not cited to sensationalist sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Restoring earlier tick per 3family6's post, superseding my question mark icon above, and striking ALT1 and ALT2, leaving ALT3 and ALT4 for the promoter to choose between. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Michael_Wynn-Jones&oldid=959974143"