Template:Did you know nominations/Swords in courts-martial
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Swords in courts-martial
[edit]- ... that traditionally, armed forces officers at court-martial would lay their swords on the table, which then would be pointed at them if they were found guilty?
- ALT1:... that armed forces officers would place their swords on the table at court-marital as a symbol of putting their rank and reputation as a gentleman on hold?
- Reviewed: Call to Arms (video game)
Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC).
• 
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
- ✓ This article is new and was created on 09:38, 04 September 2016 (UTC)
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2760 characters
- ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
- ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
- ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (3.8% confidence; confirm)
- Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
• No overall issues detected
- ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 159 characters
- ✓ The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length at 154 characters
- ✓ The C of E has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Call to Arms (video game) was performed for this nomination.
Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 15:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
/ 
The robot's assessment is good. New enough, long enough, well cited throughout. Either hook works (the first cited to ref 2 and accepted IGF, the second to ref 1) though I prefer the first. @The C of E: The article is currently an orphan, so you'll want to get that fixed before this heads to the Main Page. QPQ done, no image to worry about...this is good to go! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 05:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Bobamnertiopsis, your review doesn't mention neutrality or close paraphrasing/copyvio checking, which are both required for DYKs. Can you please check these criteria as well? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- / Oops, mea culpa and thank you. Article is neutral in its treatment of the subject. I made one tweak to the wording but it is otherwise now free of close paraphrasing issues. Also, it's no longer an orphan, good work! Ready to go. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 05:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
