Template:Did you know nominations/Silvio (horse), Blair Athol (horse)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Blair Athol (horse), Silvio (horse)
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that Blair Athol won the 1864 Derby despite getting repeatedly kicked in the genitals by a stable lad paid by bookmakers to prevent the horse from competing, and later sired Silvio, who also won the Derby in 1877?
Created/expanded by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 10:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Fresh enough, long enough, though the hook is a tad too long. I assume good faith for the offline sources. --Eisfbnore talk 18:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Trimming it down a bit, how about:
- ALT1 ... that Blair Athol won the 1864 Derby despite being repeatedly kicked in the genitals by a stable lad paid by bookmakers to stop the horse from running, and later sired Silvio, who won the 1877 Derby? Mikenorton (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- With 198 characters the new hook seems good to go. On a different note, do the DYK rules require the hook fact to be supported in both articles? The Silvio article mentions nothing about Blair Athol being kicked in the privates. Eisfbnore talk 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, only one. If it's good, don't forget the tick. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- With 198 characters the new hook seems good to go. On a different note, do the DYK rules require the hook fact to be supported in both articles? The Silvio article mentions nothing about Blair Athol being kicked in the privates. Eisfbnore talk 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and the shortened hook. Somehow I thought that compound noms get a little leeway when it comes to hook length, so I didn't bother to make the hook short.... lazy me... --PFHLai (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Having given both articles a once-over, I will confirm that this is verified. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
