Template:Did you know nominations/Tower of History

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 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Tower of History

(

)

Tower of History

~~... that the Tower of History (pictured) observation tower in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, was built by a Catholic church as part of a never-completed shrine?~~ Source: Backroads & Byways of Michigan, Detroit Free Press
- ALT1:that the Tower of History (pictured) in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, is the tallest observation tower in Michigan's Upper Peninsula? Source: The Herald-Palladium

Reviewed: Elite Forces: Unit 77

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self-nominated at 22:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC).

I will review this, one moment please.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Doing follow-up review as requested. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems: - Work on the article began on April Fools Day and was moved onto the mainspace on 15 April. This is not how I do things, and it initially threw me off, but I understand now

For an article moved to the mainspace, the "new"/"past seven days" criterion applies to the date the article was moved to the mainspace, not created in userspace, correct? Michael Barera (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems: - ECD noted a 12.3% at it's largest hit, which corresponded to a website which is closely related to the subject. Article does not meet MOS:LAYOUT, but that doesn't make it ineligible for DYK.

I've removed a couple cases of close paraphrasing; upon checking for copyvios now, it appears that nearly everything that is coming up now constitutes proper nouns. Michael Barera (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - Initial hook is 208 characters long, but discounting the ... and (pictured) it is within the character limit. ALT1 is within the 200 character limit ALT1 hook is more interesting than the the initial hook

Good catch. I've struck out the primary hook, so we can just go with ALT1. Michael Barera (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - QPQ was done on 8 January, however the creator/nominator of the article has had 4 DYK credits since that QPQ, there it is unclear if there has been sufficient QPQs since then to count as one for this nomination

I "bank" my DYK reviews in my sandbox, and always try to have 4 of them in my bank at one time, which considering that I also try to submit one DYK nomination a month means that my QPQ reviews occur about 4 months before I use them for my nominations. You can check my sandbox history and see how they cycle through over time. Hopefully, this makes sense. Michael Barera (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Overall: Article is new enough, is 2,899 characters long, and appears to be well sourced. @Michael Barera: please clarify on the QPQ issue.

Thanks for the review, RightCowLeftCoast! I've addressed each of your questions above. Michael Barera (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC) RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Barera: I will assume good faith on the bank thing, as I have not seen someone do that before. As for the move to mainspace, it's fine; just by moving it it doesn't show a clear delineation unless one knows where to look; again it's fine, just different from what I am use to seeing. On the copyvio, 12.3 is fine, but the additional edits helped. Another reviewer is now needed to recheck.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Rechecking as requested: New enough when nominated; long enough; no copyvio, paraphrasing, or plagiarism detected; uses inline cites in more than sufficient number to meet DYK policy. Hook ALT1 is multiply cited to reliable sources, is short enough, is neutral, and is reasonably interesting. Image is freely licensed, and shows up OK at 100 x 100 pixels. QPK done. This is good to go with ALT1. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)