Template:Did you know nominations/Raichle Flexon

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: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 01:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
No progress toward resolving issues after 2 weeks

Raichle Flexon

(

)

... that the Raichle Flexon ski boot was based on the design of space suits?

Reviewed: Jeremiah Smith (Royal Navy officer)

Created/expanded by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nom at 12:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New enough and long enough based on the date nominated. Nominator has reviewed an article. Hook is interesting enough, neutral and properly formatted. Hook is supported by an inline reference in the article.
article is not fully supported with inline citations. These can probably be removed with the article being long enough. (Lots of the sources rely on the manufacturer's website.)
Symbol possible vote.svg I checked the images. They say imported and creative commons, but a check of the source page shows no copyright listed on the images. :( Page image found on has a copyright that is not creative commons.
Mild concerns about paraphrasing: See about page. Would like a second opinion in case I am being overly cautious. None of the other sources that are publicly available really gave my much concern. --LauraHale (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion sought. Needs images addressed and uncited material removed OR fully cited. --LauraHale (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I received releases on all of these images from the people that took them, and as you can see in the thread they were posted in (which I started) I clearly asked and only accepted images taken of their own boots. ORTS tags were filed some time ago, but the ORTS system is backed up by weeks, in some cases months (11 months in one case). I have raised this issue several times here and on the Commons, but it doesn't seem to be widely known yet. (NOTE: I have since added the OTRS-pending tags, I didn't realize it didn't have them yet).
As to the uncited issues, I believe you may be taking a restrictive view here, but I'll open that on your talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Until the images have verification from OTRS, the article does not, as I understand it, qualify for DYK and the image cannot be used. As for the the unsourced material, should be easy enough to source. If some one wants to give the article a good to go tick with {{fact}} tags in it, they certainly can but given the repeated discussions on Wikipedia talk:Did you know, I am uncomfortable doing so myself. (ESPECIALLY when there are close paraphrasing concerns and the uncited text cannot be checked.) Have you addressed the close paraphrasing issue? --LauraHale (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

To meet the minimum DYK requirements, there must be at least one citation per paragraph (not every sentence). Three paragraphs are currently not cited. The paraphrasing similarities provided in the link are acceptable IMHO, not many ways you can say that his grandfather was the German chancellor. The image now has a OTRS # and tag, so it can be used. Froggerlaura (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Article has not had citation issue addressed in over two weeks. Nominator does not appear motivatied to fix the problem. Should be failed. :( --LauraHale (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)