 | A fact from Sam Poo appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 September 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Did you know nomination edit
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- ... that "one of early Australia's biggest manhunts" was organized to catch Chinese Australian bushranger Sam Poo? Source: "The loot of 'Cranky' Sam Poo". The Sydney Morning Herald. 20 August 1961. Retrieved 30 August 2021.
5x expanded by OakMapping (talk). Self-nominated at 12:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC).
The article has been considerably expanded, the hook is good, references look good. I believe the author has not yet had 5 DYK nominations so QPQ is not needed yet. As for the content, I see some repeating in the 1st and 2nd paragraph of the Murder and manhunt section, maybe have another look at it. Good to go, otherwise. A well-written and interesting feaurette from Australian history. Tone 17:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This is very confusing edit
Most of the article makes many assertions of the form "Poo robbed this guy" and "Poo shot that guy", implying that there is no question of his guilt. In the last couple of paragraphs however, text sourced to Robert Macklin says that little or no physical evidence was presented at the trial, implying that there is considerable question as to Poo's guilt. So did he do it or not? Macklin's criticism appears to be absurd; for example he complains about the lack of forensic ballistics in an 1865 case, when that discipline effectively began in 1915. If Macklin is a poor quality source then his contribution should be removed - or it should at least be made clear that what he says is probably specious or even disingenuous. OTOH if Poo's conviction is shaky then the article probably should not be written in such a way as to imply throughout that it is sound. 82.18.16.235 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Veracity of image? edit
The picture in the article presented as "The only known image of Sam Poo" is sourced to a 1936 newspaper article that doesn't make any claim as to the picture being an authentic drawing/representation of the actual person; in fact, it appears to be intentionally drawn in very broad strokes. So is it actually "the only known image of Sam Poo" or just an artistic rendering of what he might have looked like? Vadim Galimov (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Robet Macklin includes this image on page 215 of his work Dragon and Kangaroo, and gives the same caption but he doesn't cite it to 1936 newspaper article but to the "author's collection". That's why wrote that as the caption. OakMapping (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- That definitely sounds like there's not enough information to assume this picture was drawn during Sam Poo's lifetime or at least off his likeness, seeing as its earliest known appearance is some 70 (!) years after his death. Could it be poor/generalized wording on Macklin's part, especially seeing as his book is more pop-sci rather than a scientific publication? Vadim Galimov (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)