Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Sandwedge

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 ^talk 13:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Operation Sandwedge

(

)

... that the Watergate scandal might have been avoided if G. Gordon Liddy had not thrown out a sandwedge?

Reviewed: Monmouth Methodist Church

Created/expanded by Grapple X (talk). Self nom at 03:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

5x expansion seems fine, but I have an issue with the hook, which uses the lowercase term "a sandwedge", which is not present in the article. Further, the hook claim is not clearly supported in the article, which only mentions Watergate (referenced) once, and without a clear relation to the hook. Also, on a technical note, please remove stub templates and update the article assessment rating on talk to start. Feel free to ping me on talk for a re-review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I figured the lower case would work as a pun, but feel free to change it to "Sandwedge". The hook is a rewording of the final sentence of the article, "He believed that had Sandwedge been followed through as the campaign's strategy, " there would have been no Liddy, no Hunt, no McCord", and the subsequent scandal would not have occurred", which is supported by ref 1. There's no pipe link in "subsequent scandal" as Watergate scandal has already been linked, but I can rephrase "the subsequent scandal" to "the subsequent Watergate scandal" if you feel further clarification is needed. I've removed the stub templates and re-assessed as start, but I tend to avoid self-assessing my own work. GRAPPLE X 01:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think editors can self-assess their work up to C-class. As the hook seems based on a pun, and I am an ESL, I'd suggest you ask for a second opinion at WT:DYK. A native speaker would be more qualified to comment on this further; as far as I am concerned, this passes as a DYK on all other criteria. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If a pun isn't clear then it's not worth going with. How about just having it at face value, with Alt1: "... that the Watergate scandal might have been avoided had G. Gordon Liddy followed Operation Sandwedge?

ALT seems --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)