Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. presidential impeachment
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
U.S. presidential impeachment
- ... that articles of impeachment were introduced against six U.S. presidents, but no action was taken on them?
- ALT1:... that the U.S. House of Representatives declined to impeach four U.S. presidents?
- ALT2:... that the U.S. House of Representatives spent three days debating the possible impeachment of President Harry Truman?
- ALT3:... that a resolution to impeach U.S. President John Tyler was defeated in the House of Representatives?
- ALT4: ... that the U.S. House of Representatives set up a special committee to consider whether President James Buchanan should have been impeached?
- ALT5: ... that no U.S. president has been removed from office after impeachment?
Created by Deisenbe (talk) and Arglebargle79 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC).
- Hi Deisenbe.
On first look this doesn't seem like it has enough prose characters. I'm only seeing about 520 characters of readable prose, which excludes the quote and the bullet lists. Even if the quote and bullet lists were converted into paragraphs, this only appears to have 1,000 characters, but the quotes and bullet lists are not eligible. In order for this to be eligible, you'd need to (1) add 1,000 more prose characters (to the paragraphs, not to any bullet lists) or (2) convert the bullet lists into paragraph and add about 800 more prose characters. epicgenius (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Furthermore, this appears to have some unreferenced bullet points as well - these will have to be fixed. epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Not involved in this nomination, just a courtesy ping. Article has been expanded to be 5x on 6 December. Cowlibob (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Cowlibob: Thanks. I've done a full review now. (Also, it makes sense to credit @Arglebargle79: on this as well, since they provided most of the expansion.) Deisenbe, if you or Arglebargle79 can resolve the issues below, that would be great. epicgenius (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Not involved in this nomination, just a courtesy ping. Article has been expanded to be 5x on 6 December. Cowlibob (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Deisenbe.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Several entire sections are unsourced, e.g. Andrew Johnson (1868), Richard Nixon (1973–74), John Tyler (1843). The general guideline is at least one source per paragraph, per WP:DYKSG#D2. - Neutral: - There is also the maintenance tag {{Fact or opinion}} on this page, which needs to be resolved.
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - I don't see a specific source saying this.
- Interesting:
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
epicgenius (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- ALT6: ... that fifteen U.S. presidents have been subject to demands to be impeached, but only three have been impeached?
The article has now been heavily referenced. It needs more copyediting. I don't think any of the first five hooks are up to snuff. --evrik (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- No point in calling for a reviewer while the article has a copyedit template on it; the article cannot be approved until a copyedit has been completed. Putting this on hold until a copyedit is completed; the nominators Deisenbe and/or Arglebargle79 may wish to request a copyedit at the Guild of Copy Editors Request page; lead time on requests is fairly short at the moment, especially with a new GOCE drive starting on January 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- The tags were removed on a technicality, since the article is now at the GOCE Requests page, which requires the regular copyedit template to be removed. However, the copyedit is still needed, so I'm superseding the call for a new reviewer until the requested copyedit is complete (the request currently the oldest unclaimed one, though articles are not always edited in order). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm happy to report that the GOCE copyedit has been completed, and the copy editor went above and beyond by also finding inline source citations for a number of "citation needed" templates. However, four of these still remain, and will need to be sourced: Deisenbe and/or Arglebargle79, please take care of these as soon as possible, and report back here. Once they have all been addressed, the review here can resume, and I'd imagine it will conclude in short order. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: in response to a ping on their talk page, Deisenbe posted the following:
When I made the nomination the article was 4,477. Now it's 63,575, with 25 editors in the last 30 days. I don't feel it would be a wise use of my time to work on it further. So cancel the nomination. Sorry. deisenbe (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Under the circumstances, I have to consider this as having been withdrawn.
Marking for closure as withdrawn, unless someone else wants to supply the needed citations. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: in response to a ping on their talk page, Deisenbe posted the following:
