Template:Did you know nominations/Federal Protective Forces

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewing guide WMFLabs Dup detector Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count Reviewers' template Disambig links External links Find sources (notability)

Federal Protective Forces

• ( Back to T:TDYK
• Article history )

U.S. Federal Protective Forces at the Savannah River Site

U.S. Federal Protective Forces at the Savannah River Site

• ... that studies show that up to 50 percent of the personnel in a United States Federal Protective Forces detachment could be killed defending a U.S. Department of Energy facility from intrusion? [1] "Mandated testing of security, performed at all DOE facilities, shows that up to 50 percent of the guard force could be killed while reacting to or trying to prevent the theft or sabotage of nuclear material."

• Reviewed: Boron monofluoride monoxide

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 05:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC).

• 16px Article is new enough, long enough, and NPOV enough. The hook could be more concise. How about, ALT1 "... that 50% of a U.S. Federal Protective Forces detachment could be killed while defending a U.S. Department of Energy facility?" Morganfitzp (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll get a (GF) Fram'ing if we use the Alt hook as the studies show "up to" 50%, not precisely 50%. LavaBaron (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Curious about the difference between "50% could" and "up to 50% could." It's all in the "could." (Though I suppose one could infer that the former means it's either 50% or nothing). Morganfitzp (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• ALT1a ... that up to 50% of a U.S. Federal Protective Forces detachment could be killed while defending a U.S. Department of Energy facility?"

• 16px This article is new enough and long enough. I agree with LavaBaron that the original hook is better than ALT1, although ALT1a would be acceptable. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no close paraphrasing or other policy issue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)