Template:Did you know nominations/Neil McLaughlin

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) 23:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Neil McLaughlin

(

)

... that Neil McLaughlin started boxing "by mistake" after an argument with his gymnastics coach? Source: Derry Journal
- ALT1:... that boxer Neil McLaughlin was shot at by soldiers after throwing stones at vehicles during Bloody Sunday? Source: Irish Independent

Reviewed: Bambang Soegeng

5x expanded by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - y First hook is sourced. Second hook's source looks to be reporting on what McLaughlin said rather than the source itself saying it happened. Obviously no big deal if we go with the first one, and trivial to correct if the second is preferred.
Interesting:

QPQ: - pending
Overall: Presuming a mild preference for the first hook (since it's first). I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. They're both "hooky" and the second can easily be fixed.
— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Thanks for the review, I've added my QPQ in for this now. Happy to stick with the first hook. Kosack (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

good to go with the first hook — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Aside: I never know what to do with the checklist once problems are addressed, since you can't keep a comment and change to "y" (and deleting the comment removes context). Is this way of just moving on from the checklist after it's been responded to ok? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not. The approval tick would indicate a pass and the discussion is there for context. Kosack (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)