Template:Did you know nominations/William H. Barnes (jurist)

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

William H. Barnes (jurist) edit

(

)

... that the foreman of a grand jury which he oversaw complained that Judge William H. Barnes (pictured) was exerting inappropriate influence on witnesses?

ALT1:... that Arizona Territorial Supreme Court Justice William H. Barnes (pictured) once issued a ruling that "the court ought not to issue the writ unless it is prepared to enforce [it]"?
ALT2:... that the official reason Arizona Territorial Supreme Court Justice William H. Barnes (pictured) was dismissed was that he was accepting a salary from Arizona Territory?
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Steve Glasson
Comment: Request this be run on May 11 (125th anniversary of the Wham Paymaster Robbery). Barnes was the judge which oversaw the grand jury investigation into the case.

Created by Allen3 (talk). Self nominated at 00:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

Concern Main hook fails NPOV - "was exerting inappropriate influence on witnesses," takes disputed accusations as facts. Hipocrite (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Misread the hook. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggest change in hook to

ALT3...that the foreman of a grand jury in the Wham Paymaster Robbery case complained that presiding William H. Barnes (pictured) was exerting inappropriate influence on government witnesses?

Still under 200 characters. Shows the case, which I think adds interest. Also, exertion of influence on government witnesses, as was claimed, showed he was favoring the defense. Details are in the article and in the citation. Original hook is ok if must be shorter or if preferred by nominator/author.

. Article was new within five days of nomination. Prose portion is long enough. Meets core policies: neutral article, cites sources and has inline citations, no evidence of copyright violations - many of the citations and references are before 1923 and many are verifiable through links; assume good faith with the other sources; no evidence of close paraphrasing or plagiarism. Hook is short enough and meets formatting guidelines. I am not opposed to the shorter originally proposed hook, but as I note, I think a longer hook as I proposed might be more attractive. Hook fact is interesting, deals with a long-deceased person, is neutral, accurate, can be verified as such by the citation which is available on line. QPQ satisfied. Image is from Wikimedia Commons, copyright (1916) has expired, thumbnail version is ok for attachment. Note request that this run on anniversary of the robbery - May 11. Ready to go as far as I am concerned. Donner60 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If the promoter prefers ALT3, I have no objection. The shorter proposed hook was written to avoid multiple links to the robbery appearing on the Main page at the same time. The robbery is currently scheduled to appear at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 11. --Allen3 ^talk 08:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)