Template:Did you know nominations/Racial segregation in the United Kingdom
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Racial segregation in the United Kingdom
... that although racial segregation was never made legal in the UK, many places operated a colour bar where non-white customers were banned from using certain spaces and facilities?Source: "the colour bar... ran through both imperial society and postwar Britain like letters through seaside rock." [1]- ALT0a: ... that racial segregation was never mandated in the UK, many places operated a colour bar where non-white customers were banned from using certain spaces and facilities? --evrik (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that many places in the UK were racially segregated and non-white customers were banned from using spaces and facilities, even though the law never officially permitted such a colour bar? Source: "the colour bar... ran through both imperial society and postwar Britain like letters through seaside rock." [2]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lichexanthone
5x expanded by Davidjes601 (talk). Nominated by Zeromonk (talk) at 15:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC).
How are you measuring the 5x expanison? There are a couple of tags on the article. The text should be given a copyedited. Perhaps refer this to the Guild of Copyeditors? The first two sentences should be rewritten for clarity. There are a couple of grammatical errors in the text. Also, the hook seems to be a double negative. I would rewrite the hook as well. --evrik (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- As per DYK check: "Article became a non-redirect on March 3, 2022. Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 60 edits ago on March 10, 2022." Article was 42 bytes on 3rd and 15,474 bytes by 10 March, so clearly more than x5 expansion. I would contest the suggestion that the text requires anything more than a very light-touch copyedit - certainly not enough to prevent DYK. The hook is not a double negative - the UK law never officially said it was okay to be racist but people did it anyway. Zeromonk (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was curious about the date because the March 3 date cannot be seen because of copyright issues, and I was wondering why this wasn't nominate as a new article. I find the prose to be clunky and suggest you take this to Wikipedia:GOCE. There are still unresolved tags that need to be addressed. Today, I'm not inclined to pass this nomination. --evrik (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- It appears that copyediting and other edits have been accomplished. Is this nomination good to go now or are there still issues? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hook is awkward and needs to be rewritten. AGF on the sources. New enough, long enough, adequately sourced, QPQ done. Does not pass earwig the text flagged needs to be rewritten. I'm not clear on the date of the 5x expansion, but will let that pass. --evrik (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks folks for the reviews - I've added an Alt-hook but the article written after the Wiki article is causing the CopyVio - you'll see from the publication dates that the Wiki one came first, so it isn't actually CopyVio - the later article echoes this text rather than the other way around. Zeromonk (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
