Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Childs"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Bcp67
(initial review)
imported>Bcp67
(more)
Line 25: Line 25:
  
 
:* <!--Make first comment here-->
 
:* <!--Make first comment here-->
−
Hook looks slightly long at 376 chars, and also refers to Cavalry Regiments of the British Army, rather than the specific regiment that Childs donated to (4th Hussars) - could this be changed?  Otherwise looks good - the hook checks out with the cite (I have the same book so was able to verify it), article is sufficiently long, verifiable and new enough. --[[User:Bcp67|Bcp67]] ([[User talk:Bcp67|talk]]) 11:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
+
*Hook looks slightly long at 376 chars, and also refers to Cavalry Regiments of the British Army, rather than the specific regiment that Childs donated to (4th Hussars) - could this be changed?  Otherwise looks good - the hook checks out with the cite (I have the same book so was able to verify it), article is sufficiently long, verifiable and new enough. --[[User:Bcp67|Bcp67]] ([[User talk:Bcp67|talk]]) 11:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 +
:Not sure about the image though and would appreciate some comment from a more experienced DYK reviewer. --[[User:Bcp67|Bcp67]] ([[User talk:Bcp67|talk]]) 11:52, 11 May 2013 (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 11:52, 11 May 2013

Joe Childs

Portrait of Joe Childs, by Sir John Lavery (1856-1941)

  • Comment: Not a self-nom. --PFHLai (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Created by Peaky76 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 10:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

  • Hook looks slightly long at 376 chars, and also refers to Cavalry Regiments of the British Army, rather than the specific regiment that Childs donated to (4th Hussars) - could this be changed? Otherwise looks good - the hook checks out with the cite (I have the same book so was able to verify it), article is sufficiently long, verifiable and new enough. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure about the image though and would appreciate some comment from a more experienced DYK reviewer. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)