Template:Did you know nominations/Political positions of Lincoln Chafee
- 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 Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Political positions of Lincoln Chafee
[edit]- ... that Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee
refusedresisted a court order to transfer a state prisoner to the U.S. government, because the transfer could have made the prisoner eligible for capital punishment?
Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 17:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC).
- Article is new and long enough. No QPQ, but I belive this editor may have less than 5 DYKS. Article is inline sourced to a variety of sources; spotchecks did not not reveal close paraphrasing problems. As a thumb of rule, each paragraph in a DYK article is to have at least one inline source; and the paragraph on Parks and Preservations lacks this, so that should be added. I also think the info regarding NARAL in the abortion section should be sourced (and preferably precised as to which years/lifetime he received the degree/s for). I will add that the article is somewhat thin on domestic issues (thinner than the mother article, which isn't good for a spin-off article) and it has many one, two, three sentences paragraphs, so I would prefer that the domestic issues section was turned into fewer sub-sections. As for the hook, it is interesting, just about short enough and basically correct. However, the independent source (NYTimes) doesn't explicitly say he refused to follow a court order; it says he refused to hand the suspect over and regarding court decisions "The federal government got one ruling in its favor, and one against, from a three-judge appeals panel", so the hook may need some slight tweaking or an addition of a ref that more directly back up the hook fact "refused a court order". - Pinging LavaBaron - Iselilja (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the source, but possibly saying he "resisted a court order" or "resisted transferring" the prisoner vaugue-ifies it appropriately. EEng (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't quite get the difference between "refused" and "resisted", but that may be because English is not my first language. Might be better to add a ref. that more directly uses the phrase "resisted court order". Or your second alterative leaving out court order might be an alternative; allthough this case ended by a transfer (after a plea bargain and guarantee of no death penalty). It might be an idea to add the last fact to the article; even if it's more a practical matter and not a political position. Iselilja (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Refused" carries the implication he was actually in a position to block the transfer, and did so at least temporarily. "Resisted" is a somewhat vague term which includes temporary, futile footdragging. Since there seems to be some doubt as to what actually happened, "resisted" is safe. EEng (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Pinged the nominator on talk page. Harrias talk 10:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ive left a message on there talk page. If no response in next day or so this should be declined.Blethering Scot 19:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Remind me why the hurry? EEng (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Because it is clearly stale. The nomination was made 1 and a half months ago and was reviewed well over a month ago. This is by definition stale and not new content. If the nominator doesn't wish to return and has been active as recently as today, they are clearly not coming back. Unless another editor shows interest in fixing the issues then this should be declined.Blethering Scot 16:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and the whole "new content" thing is just an arbitrary way of limiting nominations so we don't get flooded. Readers don't give a shit about whether the content is new. Now just relax and give the nominator some breathing room -- maybe his mom's sick or something. EEng (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Because it is clearly stale. The nomination was made 1 and a half months ago and was reviewed well over a month ago. This is by definition stale and not new content. If the nominator doesn't wish to return and has been active as recently as today, they are clearly not coming back. Unless another editor shows interest in fixing the issues then this should be declined.Blethering Scot 16:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Remind me why the hurry? EEng (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ive left a message on there talk page. If no response in next day or so this should be declined.Blethering Scot 19:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Pinged the nominator on talk page. Harrias talk 10:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Refused" carries the implication he was actually in a position to block the transfer, and did so at least temporarily. "Resisted" is a somewhat vague term which includes temporary, futile footdragging. Since there seems to be some doubt as to what actually happened, "resisted" is safe. EEng (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't quite get the difference between "refused" and "resisted", but that may be because English is not my first language. Might be better to add a ref. that more directly uses the phrase "resisted court order". Or your second alterative leaving out court order might be an alternative; allthough this case ended by a transfer (after a plea bargain and guarantee of no death penalty). It might be an idea to add the last fact to the article; even if it's more a practical matter and not a political position. Iselilja (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the source, but possibly saying he "resisted a court order" or "resisted transferring" the prisoner vaugue-ifies it appropriately. EEng (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- We typically give a week for the nominator to respond, maybe more if they haven't been active. However, as LavaBaron hasn't posted here since the initial nomination, despite multiple pings and talk-page posts, if nothing is posted here by the end of the month, a week after Harrias's notification, I think that closing the nomination once June has begun would be appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- The corrections recommended above have been made. Please let me know if I missed anything. Thanks and sorry for the delay replying. LavaBaron (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- LavaBaron, I can see edits made back on April 23 regarding the article structure, but nothing has been done on the issue of the hook, which is the show-stopper, and indeed no edits made to the article at all on May 30. Can I ask what you intend to do about the sourcing and wording around "refused" vs. "resisted" mentioned above? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to check the new changes and finish the review if they address the issues raised above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Since Chafee is, supposedly, going to announce his candidacy for U.S. president this afternoon, this might be a timely DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Swooping in with a timely review. Age, length, neutrality, copyvio etc. are all fine. Cited to at least one source per paragraph. It's a bit listy without being a list, but checking the DYK rule book (I'm not really checking it; I'm drinking wine instead) I can't see anything against that. Hook is fine reworded to "resisted". Good to finally go. Belle (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)