- The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Esme Tombleson edit
- ... that Esme Tombleson's career covers reciting Shakespeare, ballet, civil service, farming, membership of the New Zealand Parliament, and MS advocacy?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2012 English Channel scallop fishing dispute
- Comment: 5x expansion
Created/expanded by Schwede66 (talk). Self nom at 20:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hook properly formatted. QPQ done. No images to check copyright wise. Expansion is long enough. Article reads as neutral enough. Hooked facts found in article. Hook is interesting enough.
Offline sources support text and were not plagiarised to write.
Fact tag needs cleaning. --LauraHale (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have restructured the article, so that sentence is now part of a longer paragraph that is otherwise referenced. It should thus meet DYK requirements. That said, I had a good go at trying to reference this, as I have the book The First 50 Years that deals with the history of the National Party. However, what that book states is somewhat indirect, and working backwards, what the book implies doesn't square up with the list that is given with the Capital punishment in New Zealand article. I have reason to believe that the book hasn't got it right (and that would indeed be the first inaccuracy that I have spotted in that 400 page work). I have put a query in with the editor who originally added the info to the respective articles; he is somebody who usually gets it right. Schwede66 01:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The editor referred to above said that he'd do some digging for his source, but hasn't got back to me yet. As I said, I believe that whilst this particular fact is not sourced, there's a reference for other facts in that paragraph, and it should thus meet DYK requirements. That will not stop me from adding the source to the ten articles that mentions the fact once that source has been located, but for now, I suggest that somebody gives the nomination a tick. Schwede66 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would suggest removing that sentence for DYK purposes; you can re-add it with the [citation needed] tag after it's off the main page (or, preferably, when you find a source). Other than that I think this should be good to go. Yazan (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article may be too close to that of its source. Compare for example "She had the ability to dominate meetings, as she had learned during her theatre days in Sydney how to project her voice. As her hearing deteriorated later in life, her voice got even louder" with "Her skills in voice projection, developed during her Sydney theatre days, helped her continue to dominate meetings as her hearing deteriorated and her voice got even louder". I'm also seeing some potential neutrality issues in phrases like "as a headstrong person, she liked to compete with men. But her husband was just there for her to support her in every way he could, and was not interested in competition", which appears to be only partially supported by a personal anecdote in the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like the ability to paraphrase had temporarily left me. I have fixed it, and also addressed the neutrality issue, so this is ready for another review. It's so long ago that I wrote this article that I checked it against the obituary using Duplication Detector, and it didn't show up anything else of concern. When something gets pulled from the prep area, my understanding is that it automatically shows up again on the nomination page, but this one didn't. So I have added the nomination manually to the noms page again; if that upsets any of the processes here, please be aware of it. Schwede66 19:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- You did exactly right with adding the nomination manually: normally, the original template shows up, but not if all the templates on a date have been promoted, because when that happens the date itself and all its templates is removed as completed. In that case, if one of the templates is subsequently pulled back, someone needs to restore the date entirely, or at least the one template and the date. This happens so infrequently that sometimes the restoration step is not remembered: I'm very glad you noticed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks for the explanation. That means it's now nominated under the wrong date, as I think I originally put it up under 24 October (when expansion started), but it's now under 26 October (when expansion finished; the original date was no longer there, and you have explained why). Schwede66 16:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Better, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
