Template:Did you know nominations/John H. Pratt
- 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) 19:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
John H. Pratt[edit]
- ...
that in a 1974 bench trial, Judge John H. Pratt found G. Gordon Liddy guilty of contempt of Congress?
- Reviewed: Robert Sexé
5x expanded by Neutrality (talk). Self-nominated at 02:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC).
Very nice work on the entry! All looks good. What would you think of making the following adjustment to the hook:
ALT1: ... that in a 1974 bench trial connected to the Watergate scandal, Judge John H. Pratt found G. Gordon Liddy guilty of contempt of Congress?
- I'm just thinking that may help a wider readership understand the significance. It's slightly longer but still well under 200 characters. Beyond that, the entry's new enough, long enough, neutral, clears Earwig's Copyvio, hook is sourced, QPQ done--good to go! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Alt1 works for me—thanks! Neutralitytalk 04:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! Good to go! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I came by to promote this, but the lead does not reflect his notability at all. You could do without the educational information, but please do name some of the notable cases he was involved in. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yoninah, I have updated the Pratt entry as you suggest (of course, Neutrality, if you have a better version, please adjust mine as you see fit!) But Yoninah, I want to be sure you're aware that Liddy is still living--I approved this hook before I was aware there was any contention that DYKs should never mention negative information about living people. I still think factually accurate and neutrally presented hooks like this one should be acceptable even if they contain unflattering information, but felt obliged to flag the issue as it appears at minimum there's disagreement on my view. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Innisfree987: if someone is convicted, that is not considered a negative BLP. The problem with the Dave Becky hook was with the whole UNDUE section. But see this other opinion. If you wish, we could post a question at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am really perplexed since you seemed to be saying just the opposite elsewhere but like I say my view is that this is fine, so if we all agree, great; agree with Neutrality below this should go forward. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Innisfree987: if someone is convicted, that is not considered a negative BLP. The problem with the Dave Becky hook was with the whole UNDUE section. But see this other opinion. If you wish, we could post a question at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yoninah, I have updated the Pratt entry as you suggest (of course, Neutrality, if you have a better version, please adjust mine as you see fit!) But Yoninah, I want to be sure you're aware that Liddy is still living--I approved this hook before I was aware there was any contention that DYKs should never mention negative information about living people. I still think factually accurate and neutrally presented hooks like this one should be acceptable even if they contain unflattering information, but felt obliged to flag the issue as it appears at minimum there's disagreement on my view. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! Good to go! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Alt1 works for me—thanks! Neutralitytalk 04:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Can we move this forward? I don't see ant reason for further delay. Neutralitytalk 17:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)