Template:Did you know nominations/Sir Walter Roper Lawrence

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 PumpkinSky talk 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sir Walter Roper Lawrence

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Sir Walter Roper Lawrence, a Baronet and an English author who served in the Indian Civil Service under the British in India, was the Settlement Commissioner of Kashmir?

• Comment: Sir Walter Roper Lawrence served in the Indian Civil Service in Punjab (1879-1895) during which he was the Settlement Commissioner of Kashmir under the British in India.

Created/expanded by Mehrajmir13 (talk). Self nom at 13:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Article length and creation date are fine, and I've made necessary grammatical and wikilink changes to the hook. But the actual statement that Lawrence was the first Settlement Commissioner of Kashmir lacks an inline citation, and it isn't clear if the offline citation a couple sentences later applies to that assertion. Tomsimlee (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I‘ve made the necessary correction in the article and added a reference. The word “first“ needs to be omitted, because none of the reference says first Settlement Commissioner of Kashmir.  MehrajMir ' ^(Talk) 15:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Citation issues are resolved. Tomsimlee (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Article creation date is not fine: article was created on June 22, and would have needed to be nominated by June 28 in order to qualify. It was nominated on July 1. This is far closer than others subsequently nominated by Mehrajmir13, which range from a few weeks to a couple of months after creation/expansion, but it is nonetheless outside the five days specified. As it was the first to be nominated after Maile66 nominated one of his, perhaps WP:IAR would apply here. However, an exception should be specifically noted, if being granted. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think 8 days for a new-ish editor is acceptable. Tick based on above review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• You're correct Blue, apologies. Id leave this up to more experienced reviewers than I. Tomsimlee (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to all! For your kindness, and benevolence. Who is next to gonna label it as “Not Promoted“? MehrajMir ' ^(Talk) 13:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)