Template:Did you know nominations/National War Labor Board (1942–1945)
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 02:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
National War Labor Board (1942–1945)
- ... that the tripartite structure of the National War Labor Board helped the United States keep work stoppages to a minimum during World War II? Source: see footnotes 36 and 105 in article
- ALT1: ... that the "Little Steel formula" was devised by the National War Labor Board, an agency of the U.S. government during World War II, to limit the amount that wages could be increased in any industry? Source: see footnotes 20 and 50 in article, among others
- ALT2: ... that "maintenance of membership" was the compromise that the National War Labor Board, an agency of the U.S. government during World War II, found regarding the issue of union security? Source: see footnotes 20 and 45 in article
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Rutherford
5x expanded by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 16:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/National War Labor Board (1942–1945); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Comment: From what I can see, this expansion was done very nicely. Nominator expanded the article word count almost 26 fold. — Mugtheboss (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Length and history verified; most references accepted AGF. I would humbly suggest to the nominator that it would be a good idea to undertake, or ask that someone else do, the admittedly tedious task of putting the many references to the same work cited repeatedly save by page number into {{sfn}} format ... it would make the article much easier to review.Before I approve this, I think you could trim the quote at the beginning of the "Operation" section that gets the copyvio scoring so high ... the rest of that is just because of the unavoidable reuse of certain words and phrases.
As for hooks, I like the original one. Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Thanks for doing the review. I have trimmed down the "Operation" section quote to make it more compact. Regarding book reference short form cite styles, some people use {{sfn}} and some people use {{harvnb}} and some people use {{rp}} and some people use obscure variations on each of these and some people are probably using some new thing I haven't seen yet. So in the face of all that, I just use plain text. It would be okay with me if the MOS adopted just one way of doing these and everyone would do it that one way. But knowing WP editors, that is not in the cards. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I used to be like you, yes. But for the past year I have found {{sfn}} the best ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Thanks for doing the review. I have trimmed down the "Operation" section quote to make it more compact. Regarding book reference short form cite styles, some people use {{sfn}} and some people use {{harvnb}} and some people use {{rp}} and some people use obscure variations on each of these and some people are probably using some new thing I haven't seen yet. So in the face of all that, I just use plain text. It would be okay with me if the MOS adopted just one way of doing these and everyone would do it that one way. But knowing WP editors, that is not in the cards. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
