Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/R.S. Owens & Company, C.W. Shumway & Sons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Allen3 talk 22:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

R.S. Owens & Company, C.W. Shumway & Sons

[edit]

Created by Ktr101 (talk). Self nominated at 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

NOTE: This is a special date request for March 2. I know that because it was added to the special requests area. I moved it out because it hadn't been reviewed yet. --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Articles are new. The Shumway article is long enough, but the Owens article is 3 characters short of the 1500 threshold. A second QPQ is needed for a dual hook, like this one. To support the hook, the Shumway article should say who got the Oscar work when Shumway left the business, and the Owens article should say who did it before they got the job. I have not done reviews of the articles and I have not checked hook sourcing. --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I fixed everything, so it should be good to go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's not fixed. I don't see a second QPQ review, and the article you added to is the one that was already long enough. --Orlady (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
@Orlady: Are you going to be able to review this so that we can put it up for later today? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
After an inordinate amount of work on my part, I believe this is ready to go, with the rewording represented by ALT1, below. The articles are within policy, long enough, and adequately supported by reference citations. After my efforts, I believe that the hook fact is supported by citations in both articles. That's not the situation that I originally found. The nominator is hereby chastised (and should be ashamed of himself) for copying content and references from other Wikipedia articles without determining whether the cited references actually support the content -- and for inserting a current date as "accessdate" for references that have not actually been available for several years. Because the articles and sources don't indicate that tonight's Oscars are being produced by R.S. Owens, nor that exactly 50 are being produced for tonight, I have trimmed the hook as follows: