Template:Did you know nominations/Forge Wood

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 97198 (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Forge Wood

edit
  • ... that Forge Wood, Crawley New Town's 14th neighbourhood, took 13 years to gain planning approval—partly because a new runway at nearby Gatwick Airport was also under consideration?

Created by Hassocks5489 (talk). Self nominated at 22:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

  • Reviewing this now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • QPQ met.
    Article: Moved to mainspace on day of nomination, 27KB length is much more than adequate, neutrally written, sources cited with inline citations. The article is very long and includes 41 citations, so I have checked only a sample in which I found no evidence of close paraphrasing issues, copyvio or plagiarism. AGF on the rst.
    Hook: both hooks are fairly interesting, neutral, and raise no BLP issues. The main hook is sourced in the lead, the second hook wasn't, so I fixed that. The main hook is very long at 181 characters, even ALT1 is still a bit long at 133. I think that too many facts are being crammed in, and will suggest some shorter hooks below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Three suggested new hooks:
    • ALT2:... that Crawley New Town's new Forge Wood neighbourhood took 13 years from planning application to permission? (107 characters)
    • ALT3:... that Crawley took 13 years to process the planning application for its Forge Wood neighbourhood? (96 characters)
    • ALT4:... that the planning process for the new Forge Wood neighbourhood of Crawley took 13 years? (89 characters)
  • Personally, I like my ALT4 the best. Short and punchy. YMMV :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. All three ALTs (2/3/4) look good to me, and I would likewise put ALT4 at the top. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed for ALTs 2/3/4. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, now I see what you did. Restoring tick based on your review. Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)