Template:Did you know nominations/Porter Sargent

The following discussion 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Porter Sargent

(

)

... that Porter Edward Sargent's Handbook of Private Schools was viewed as giving "the most comprehensive critiques of education published anywhere"?

Reviewed: St Mary’s Priory Church, Monmouth (DIFF)

Created/expanded by Presearch (talk). Self nom at 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

ALT 1: ... that gadfly Porter Sargent was described as "probably the most outstanding and consistent critic of the American educational scene"?

The article is new (created one day before nomination). It is long enough (2731) characters. It is neutral, cites sources and I haven't noticed any copyright violations. The hook is not too long (144 characters). It meets formatting guidelines. It is interesting, neutral and hooky, properly cited (though not trough the presented source, but I managed to verify it on the GBS). Nominator reviewed another nomination.

Just to clarify... Dear Antidiskriminator, many thanks for your careful review. Just for clarity (i.e., for those who will move the hook to the prep areas), I think what you mean is that the hook fact is indeed properly cited. However, in order to verify that it is properly cited, you weren't able to use the JSTOR link to the Mohrman article (probably because you don't have access to JSTOR), but that by searching on the hook's phrase in Google Book, you did find it in version of the journal that was available (apparently only in snippet view) on Google Book. I think that's what you meant, and I double-checked it myself just now. I'm only inserting this clarification because for the hook to be promoted, it's important that the hook fact be mentioned and adequately cited.... which we both seem to agree it is. Many thanks again -- Presearch (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

ALT1 hook also meets formatting guidelines' requests. It is not too long (131 character). I verified it with GBS help, so it is also cited. It is neutral and interesting but I prefer the original hook because I don't like term "probably the ...". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)