Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Jones (engineer)"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>MIDI
(review)
imported>MWright96
(review)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
-->
 
-->
  
:* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :*  -->
+
:* [[File:Symbol voting keep.svg|16px]] Nominated on day of creation and meets the length guidelines. QPQ done. Article is neutral, reliably sourced and not a copyright violation. Hooks is fascinating and sourced to a reliable citation. Whilst the hook mentions a negative about Jones, i am of the opinion it is not done so unduly and is a neutral statement of fact. Am not able to check the book itself because it is not online so will pass in good faith. Off-topic comment: the third and final sentence in the second paragraph is missing a citation to verify that particular piece of information. [[User:MWright96|MWright96]] [[User talk:MWright96|(talk)]] 22:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 22:15, 26 December 2019

Charles Jones (engineer)

The southern portal of the Sapperton Tunnel
The southern portal of the Sapperton Tunnel
  • ... that despite gaining the contract to dig the longest canal tunnel in the UK (pictured), Charles Jones already had a reputation for ineptitude and dishonesty? Source: "In the 1770s he [...] gained a reputation for singular ineptitude if not downright dishonesty [...] however in 1783 he had successfully tendered for driving the 2 mile long Sapperton Tunnel"

Created by MIDI (talk). Self-nominated at 12:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol voting keep.svg Nominated on day of creation and meets the length guidelines. QPQ done. Article is neutral, reliably sourced and not a copyright violation. Hooks is fascinating and sourced to a reliable citation. Whilst the hook mentions a negative about Jones, i am of the opinion it is not done so unduly and is a neutral statement of fact. Am not able to check the book itself because it is not online so will pass in good faith. Off-topic comment: the third and final sentence in the second paragraph is missing a citation to verify that particular piece of information. MWright96 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)