Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Archie Amerson"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Usernameunique (Comment) |
imported>KCVelaga (to prep 2) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | <noinclude>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations from January 2018]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |
| − | + | :''The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|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 Regards, [[User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga|Krishna Chaitanya Velaga]] ([[User_talk:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga|talk]] • [[Special:EmailUser/Krishna_Chaitanya_Velaga|mail]]) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)<br /> |
{{DYK conditions}} | {{DYK conditions}} | ||
====Archie Amerson==== | ====Archie Amerson==== | ||
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Archie Amerson|Archie Amerson}} | {{DYK nompage links|nompage=Archie Amerson|Archie Amerson}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* ... that [[Canadian football]] player '''[[Archie Amerson]]''' was described as both halves of the [[Hamilton Tiger-Cats]]' "one-two punch"? <small>Source: "Past woes shouldn't be extra motivation"</small> | * ... that [[Canadian football]] player '''[[Archie Amerson]]''' was described as both halves of the [[Hamilton Tiger-Cats]]' "one-two punch"? <small>Source: "Past woes shouldn't be extra motivation"</small> | ||
:* ''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Mason at Sight]] | :* ''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Mason at Sight]] | ||
<small>Improved to Good Article status by [[User:BU Rob13|BU Rob13]] ([[User talk:BU Rob13|talk]]). Self-nominated at 03:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC).</small> | <small>Improved to Good Article status by [[User:BU Rob13|BU Rob13]] ([[User talk:BU Rob13|talk]]). Self-nominated at 03:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC).</small> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:* [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] GA, in time, long enough, sourced, inline/offline hook citation accepted AGF, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. {{u|BU Rob13}}, any particular reason to have the attribution to the ''Spectator'' in the hook? Seems a bit punchier without it. --[[User:Usernameunique|Usernameunique]] ([[User talk:Usernameunique|talk]]) 06:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | :* [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] GA, in time, long enough, sourced, inline/offline hook citation accepted AGF, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. {{u|BU Rob13}}, any particular reason to have the attribution to the ''Spectator'' in the hook? Seems a bit punchier without it. --[[User:Usernameunique|Usernameunique]] ([[User talk:Usernameunique|talk]]) 06:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | ||
:**{{re|Usernameunique}} I'm fine taking it out. I usually try to attribute such "catchy" quotes to a particular paper to make it clear it isn't Wikipedia asserting the quote. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 07:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | :**{{re|Usernameunique}} I'm fine taking it out. I usually try to attribute such "catchy" quotes to a particular paper to make it clear it isn't Wikipedia asserting the quote. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 07:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | ||
| − | :::*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] {{u|BU Rob13}}, removed the line and approving. I think it's fine, as it's both attributed and cited in the article, and the phrase "was described" makes it clear that it is not a claim that Wikipedia itself is asserting. --[[User:Usernameunique|Usernameunique]] ([[User talk:Usernameunique|talk]]) 07:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | + | :::*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] {{u|BU Rob13}}, removed the line and approving. I think it's fine, as it's both attributed and cited in the article, and the phrase "was described" makes it clear that it is not a claim that Wikipedia itself is asserting. --[[User:Usernameunique|Usernameunique]] ([[User talk:Usernameunique|talk]]) 07:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)</div></noinclude><!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 02:50, 23 January 2018
- 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 Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Archie Amerson
- ... that Canadian football player Archie Amerson was described as both halves of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats' "one-two punch"? Source: "Past woes shouldn't be extra motivation"
Improved to Good Article status by BU Rob13 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC).
GA, in time, long enough, sourced, inline/offline hook citation accepted AGF, no apparent copyvios, QPQ done. Template:U, any particular reason to have the attribution to the Spectator in the hook? Seems a bit punchier without it. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Template:Re I'm fine taking it out. I usually try to attribute such "catchy" quotes to a particular paper to make it clear it isn't Wikipedia asserting the quote. ~ Rob13Talk 07:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Template:U, removed the line and approving. I think it's fine, as it's both attributed and cited in the article, and the phrase "was described" makes it clear that it is not a claim that Wikipedia itself is asserting. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)