Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Dawpool (house)"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Peter I. Vardy
(Further response to Seattle)
imported>Seattle
(re)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
:::::{{ping|Peter I. Vardy}} I want you to review a proposed did you know hook article per the QPQ rules as established under [[Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria]] rule No. 5. You never edited [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Suquamish_Museum&action=history the Suquamish Museum proposed hook]; can you show me where you reviewed it? Don't be so brash. [[User:Seattle|Seattle]] ([[User talk:Seattle|talk]]) 10:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 
:::::{{ping|Peter I. Vardy}} I want you to review a proposed did you know hook article per the QPQ rules as established under [[Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria]] rule No. 5. You never edited [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Suquamish_Museum&action=history the Suquamish Museum proposed hook]; can you show me where you reviewed it? Don't be so brash. [[User:Seattle|Seattle]] ([[User talk:Seattle|talk]]) 10:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 
:*{{ping|Seattle}}Actually, having over 500 successful nominations for DYK, I am aware of the QPQ rules.  You ask where I did the review; try [[Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum 2|here]].  And if you look [[Talk:Suquamish Museum|here]] you will see that the hook appeared on the Main Page on 21 December.  From your user name and user page I guess that we come from opposite sides of the Atlantic, and maybe we are divided by our "common" language.  Perhaps not where you are, but certainly here the word "brash" is a bit on the rude side.  Wiktionary defines it in the following terms: impetuous, rash, insensitive, tactless, impudent, and shameless.  Is it the same where you are?  Of which of these were you accusing me?  In reality, I think you made a mistake by looking at the wrong nomination, and in this season of goodwill to all men, I send you best Christmas wishes. --[[User:Peter I. Vardy|Peter I. Vardy]] ([[User talk:Peter I. Vardy|talk]]) 14:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 
:*{{ping|Seattle}}Actually, having over 500 successful nominations for DYK, I am aware of the QPQ rules.  You ask where I did the review; try [[Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum 2|here]].  And if you look [[Talk:Suquamish Museum|here]] you will see that the hook appeared on the Main Page on 21 December.  From your user name and user page I guess that we come from opposite sides of the Atlantic, and maybe we are divided by our "common" language.  Perhaps not where you are, but certainly here the word "brash" is a bit on the rude side.  Wiktionary defines it in the following terms: impetuous, rash, insensitive, tactless, impudent, and shameless.  Is it the same where you are?  Of which of these were you accusing me?  In reality, I think you made a mistake by looking at the wrong nomination, and in this season of goodwill to all men, I send you best Christmas wishes. --[[User:Peter I. Vardy|Peter I. Vardy]] ([[User talk:Peter I. Vardy|talk]]) 14:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 +
::*{{ping|Peter I. Vardy}} No, it's the same here. I'm accusing you of being rash and tactless if you believe that I wouldn't check the QPQ hook required for your submission, especially after 500+ reviews. Please link to the appropriate hook in the future; your insistence that you reviewed [[Template:Did you know nominations/Suquamish Museum|Suquamish Museum]], from the incorrect link, led me to call you brash. As for this hook, it's a [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] for all three hooks, with the best-fit to be judged by the promoter. I did not make the mistake; you originally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dawpool_(house)&oldid=638516811 linked] to the incorrect nomination. Regardless, the hook now passes, with the correct QPQ verified. I hope you have enjoyed your [[Christmas cracker]]s. [[User:Seattle|Seattle]] ([[User talk:Seattle|talk]]) 22:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 
*It's a commonplace that houses slated for demolition get cannibalized for parts.  
 
*It's a commonplace that houses slated for demolition get cannibalized for parts.  
 
::'''ALT2''' ... that [[Thomas Henry Ismay]]'s wife said that '''[[Dawpool (house)|Dawpool]]''' had "served its purpose in keeping [her husband] amused for fifteen years"?
 
::'''ALT2''' ... that [[Thomas Henry Ismay]]'s wife said that '''[[Dawpool (house)|Dawpool]]''' had "served its purpose in keeping [her husband] amused for fifteen years"?

Revision as of 22:03, 29 December 2014

Dawpool (house)

Created by Peter I. Vardy (talk). Self nominated at 17:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article created on December 17, 3,013 characters. Article is neutral, cites in-line sources well, attributes quotes about the house to their authors in-line with WP:INTEXT. Both hooks lie under the 200 character mark, are interesting. According to [1], Ismay did not found White Star Line, but purchased it for £1,000. I would prefer "in" be changed to "from" in the first hook, as it's a year range. Source supports first hook. Source also supports second hook. No images; the reviewed article links to a review by another user. I'm putting this on hold until nominator reviews another hook, and nominator fixes Ismay's role in relation to White Star. Seattle (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair point. I've amended the article and the original hook. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:Ping Have you made any progress on reviewing another hook? Seattle (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:Ping Not sure what more you want me to do. I'm OK with any of the hooks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:Ping I want you to review a proposed did you know hook article per the QPQ rules as established under Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria rule No. 5. You never edited the Suquamish Museum proposed hook; can you show me where you reviewed it? Don't be so brash. Seattle (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Template:PingActually, having over 500 successful nominations for DYK, I am aware of the QPQ rules. You ask where I did the review; try here. And if you look here you will see that the hook appeared on the Main Page on 21 December. From your user name and user page I guess that we come from opposite sides of the Atlantic, and maybe we are divided by our "common" language. Perhaps not where you are, but certainly here the word "brash" is a bit on the rude side. Wiktionary defines it in the following terms: impetuous, rash, insensitive, tactless, impudent, and shameless. Is it the same where you are? Of which of these were you accusing me? In reality, I think you made a mistake by looking at the wrong nomination, and in this season of goodwill to all men, I send you best Christmas wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Template:Ping No, it's the same here. I'm accusing you of being rash and tactless if you believe that I wouldn't check the QPQ hook required for your submission, especially after 500+ reviews. Please link to the appropriate hook in the future; your insistence that you reviewed Suquamish Museum, from the incorrect link, led me to call you brash. As for this hook, it's a Symbol confirmed.svg for all three hooks, with the best-fit to be judged by the promoter. I did not make the mistake; you originally linked to the incorrect nomination. Regardless, the hook now passes, with the correct QPQ verified. I hope you have enjoyed your Christmas crackers. Seattle (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a commonplace that houses slated for demolition get cannibalized for parts.
ALT2 ... that Thomas Henry Ismay's wife said that Dawpool had "served its purpose in keeping [her husband] amused for fifteen years"?
EEng (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)