Template:Did you know nominations/The California Field Atlas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The California Field Atlas, Obi Kaufmann[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Improved to Good Article status by Brandt Luke Zorn (talk). Self-nominated at 22:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Brandt Luke Zorn, since this nomination includes two eligible DYK articles, two QPQ credits are required. There appears to only be one listed. Flibirigit (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: I am willing to start the full review on both nominations, once I finished at XIX Army Corps. Thanks in advance. Flibirigit (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sounds good! My mistake on the double QPQ; didn't realize I had to do two, but I'm happy to do so. I've started a DYK review at Gregory Gray, results pending feedback on my comments. I wanted to have a "complete" QPQ so that we weren't waiting on results of a separate nom, so I scrolled through the page again to see if I could find a nom that was ready to go. I found Mario Pouliot—I promise it was a coincidence that it happened to be your nomination—which I've approved. —BLZ · talk 20:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the update. I will get back to this hopefully on Sunday, or Monday at the latest. Flibirigit (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Obi Kaufmann review

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article created and nominated same time, therefore new enough. Length is adequate, prose is neutral in tone, and I detected no plagiarism issues. The hook is not cited directly in this article, but it is mentioned in the article on the atlas itself which is sufficient. QPQ requirements have been met. I am curious if a source is available for the last sentence in the "The California Field Atlas and other books" section, regarding future publications. I apologize in the delay in getting back to this review. I will start the review for the article on the atlas tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Regarding the infobox for Obi Kaufmann; it mentions tattoo artist as one of his occupations, followed by period of 2017 to present. I think this could be misleading, since he was a tattooing well before the recent activities for which he is notable. Flibirigit (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The California Field Atlas review

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article nominated within 7 days of GA promition, therefore new enough. Length is adequate, prose is neutral in tone, and I detected no plagiarism issues. Hook is properly mentioned, is interesting, and cited inline. QPQ requirements have been met. I have a couple minor sourcing questions. In the second paragraph of the "Artwork" section, is there a source available for the final sentence? In the "Follow-up" section, same question as the other review; I am curious if a source is available for the future publications. Flibirigit (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Good point on the Kaufmann infobox; it's confusing and imprecise. I've removed "period" from the infobox. I've added the citation to the last sentence of the second paragraph of the "Artwork" section; the paragraph was split at some point, so it would have been more clear that the final footnote of that bigger paragraph was the footnote for the whole block of text. I've added another footnote to the end of that second paragraph for clarity. Re: Future publications: I've added the source back into both articles. A past revision of the California Field Atlas page shows that this was the source used, it must have been inadvertently dropped at some point in the editing process. —BLZ · talk 19:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Sourcing questions have been resolved, and the changes to the infobox are sufficient. Both articles and the double hook are approved. I also feel the hook is suitable for the quirky slot in a DYK set. Thanks for the enjoyable and well-written articles. Flibirigit (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_California_Field_Atlas&oldid=1019363581"