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 Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Nicholas Emery

[edit]
(
)

Created by Alphalfalfa (talk). Self-nominated at 17:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC).

  • Unfortunately, this article is neither new nor expanded 5x. On June 12, its size was 1,835 bytes and its current size is 6,045 bytes. Almost the entire byte size of the article is prose. Therefore, without further expansion, this article is ineligible. Ergo Sum 17:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Considering it seems relatively close to hitting 5x (it only needs an additional amount of bytes), I'd say we could probably give the nomination another chance. Also note that as far as I'm aware, the 5x requirement actually refers to prose content, not byte content. Prior to the nom's first edit, the article was at around 500 characters; it's at around the 2100 mark. Thus, the article only needs about 400 characters more to be eligible. With that said, the nom hasn't been active since the day after the nomination, so if this is to proceed, the remaining expansion needs to be done as soon as possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Marking again for closure. The nominator has not edited since the day of the nomination and has been unable to return despite a talk page message. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
If I have this history correct (hoping BD2412 can give a definitive answer), then the article's first appearance in mainspace was on June 30, the day this was nominated, and it would then count as a new nomination. Under the circumstances, the nomination should remain open for the present, and if I'm correct, at 2194 prose characters, it is more than long enough to qualify as a new-to-mainspace article. Whether Alphalfalfa is currently editing only becomes relevant if issues are found with the article or hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That is correct, the article was originally in draftspace, and the draftspace content and history were merged up to the mainspace article once that was created. Ideally, the author of the mainspace article should have checked for a draft first, and made their edits to the draft, but the result is the same. Either way, the article did not exist in mainspace at all until June 30. bd2412 T 02:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • BD2412, thank you. New full review needed of nomination, since it is both new enough when nominated and long enough to qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Not exactly a major issue, but there's no source in the article for the date of death. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There is now; one of the sources already there had the information. Rather than nickel and dime this, can we have a new full review, please? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I will do a full review.
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Unknown
Overall: minor problems, needs a small amt of work. I do like this article to become a DYK. Wuerzele (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

sorry I cant get the table to show up properly- I labored on this for 30 min now... will notify editor.Wuerzele (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Wuerzele, use of the DYK checklist is entirely optional. You can just write out your comments on the various criteria manually. That said, when the instructions say put "y", what they means is to use the letter or symbol that's in the quotes, but without the quotes themselves. I've taken the liberty of removing the quotes on the right side of the equal signs in the template, and that seems to have made a major difference for the better. The big question marks are items that you still need to check and fill in (plagiarismfree and qpq). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to Narutolovehinata5: as far as I can tell, there was no initial checking for copyvio/close paraphrasing, so that much of the review would still need to be done even if the Archive.org source does the trick for the other info, along with checking to make sure the QPQ was sufficiently complete. Wuerzele hasn't edited in over two weeks, so a new reviewer may be needed to do these checks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I just did a copyright check and can confirm that the article is free of close paraphrasing, and a QPQ has been done. However, this cannot be promoted as of yet unless Wuerzele's "minor problems" (presumably the sourcing issues) have been addressed. As I have mentioned, I found a second source that seems to verify the information that had a "verification failed" tag; however, I am willing to assume good faith that the source was accurate, as it seems the issue is simply that the page in question is simply not available for viewing right now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, the "failed verification" in the final paragraph was a case of the wrong source being cited there; I've fixed the source (and changed the sourced online reprint to the original book, which is always to be preferred). Regarding Wuerzele's other concerns, the million acres of Michigan land seems adequately sourced in Willis (but the sentence involved starts on the page prior, 601, so I've added it to 602 in the ref); as Merk is not available on line, it can't be checked by us. Perhaps Alphalfalfa or BD2412 could provide us with a relevant quote if you think it's needed—this is the sourcing for the proposed hook, so we need to be confident about it. If Emery's six children are truly a concern (they are not in the provided source, though his wife is), then comment them out; they should not stand in the way of this being approved. Since any other "minor problems", if there are any, have not been specified, we cannot hold this up for unknown reasons. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Just found a cite for the six children, which has been added. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Category