Template:Did you know nominations/Tingey House
- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tingey House
[edit]
Tingey House
- ... that Tingey House is the official residence of the Chief of Naval Operations of the United States Navy?
Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 06:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC).
Article is long enough and new enough. Am I using the wrong search terms or does the Washington Post article (source #1) not mention the Warrington Avenue bit? The navalhistory website is funky but archived copies endorse the statements. harrybraswell.com/ is an iffy source but for very low weight claims it may be OK. AGF on the Arcadia Publishing source. Other than these issues it seems everything is well sourced and no indication of copyright or plagiarism issues. Hook is short enough and is used and reliably sourced in the article. Image shows up well, is used in article and seems to have a reliable copyright status. QPQ is done.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm unclear - based on your message - what the issue is with this DYK. Could you clearly explain if it is an issue with (a) copyvio, (b) image licensing, (c) length of article, (d) newness of article, (e) interest of hook, (f) sourcing of the hook? Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pardon for being unclear. Sourcing of the Warrington Avenue sentence is the issue I have. I also wonder if there is a better source for the renovation, the harrybraswell website to me looks like a company website and thus not as a high quality source, but then, low weight claim.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm unclear - based on your message - what the issue is with this DYK. Could you clearly explain if it is an issue with (a) copyvio, (b) image licensing, (c) length of article, (d) newness of article, (e) interest of hook, (f) sourcing of the hook? Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pardon again, I was referring to the text in the article. And the WP:DYKRULES do require the article to comply with verifiability policies, which isn't the case if that part has no source.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Verifiability policies are normative standards until challenged. We don't do a sentence-by-sentence review for RS in DYK except in exceptional circumstances. All DYK articles should be presumed to be in a nascent stage, which is why there is the time limit for submission. The street name of a building does not rise to the level of extreme that would be needed to fail a DYK for a non-hook point of citation. That said, I appreciate your thoroughness and, at the point soon when I prepare to improve this for GAN review, I will certainly ping you to do the review. For now, though, a new reviewer is needed. LavaBaron (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. I added an extra inline citation which confirms the hook facts. I note the above discussion and believe this nomination meets the DYK requirements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
