Template:Did you know nominations/Space National Guard
Appearance
- 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 SL93 (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Space National Guard
- ... that, under a 2019 proposal, California would have a Space Guard?
- ALT-1 ... that the Colorado National Guard's 117th Space Battalion is nicknamed the "Space Cowboys"?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mou Zuoyun
Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 04:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC).
- Article is new enough and long enough. One paragraph is unsourced. I don't think that that op-ed can be interpreted as
the proposed U.S. Space Force did not contain plans for a Space National Guard
; also is this guy's opinion particularly noteworthy? - the US military is a big organization. Also not sold onthe Defense Department promised further study of the matter.
I thinkcomitteed
is a typo. Is source #7 talking about the Guard in general or only its Colorado part? I am not sure if I would interpret #8 as a "transfer". Didn't see any copyvio or plagiarism. Now about the hook - I kinda think that the first version is dependent on the "transfer" point I raised before. Beyond that it's a little more interesting than the ALT hook. Something is broken about the source link to the map. QPQ is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus - thank you very much for the review. I've made all these corrections but please let me know if I missed anything. To the question about Dunbar; I believe he's noteworthy as he's the commanding general of the entire Wisconsin National Guard. Chetsford (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Er, the "further thought" does not seem to refer to the comments by these senators, despite how it is implied in our article. I don't think the new source addresses the problem I have with "transfer" - "How would I present the bureaucratic, the operational piece in the bureaucracy into a new Space Command is, I would do it from those seven states," in the source is a bit difficult to understand - are you sure it can be read as "transfer"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- We might have to agree to disagree, but I've removed the passage in question from the article in any case. Chetsford (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK, then. ALT1 is OK, the first hook is a touch more interesting but needs to be stated in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Article is new enough and long enough. One paragraph is unsourced. I don't think that that op-ed can be interpreted as