Template:Did you know nominations/Black Codes (United States)
- 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) 19:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Black Codes (United States)[edit]
- Hook1... that Mississippi prohibited black and white Americans from assembling "on terms of equality"?
- Reviewed: Several pending, including Purple Toupee.
- Comment: There have been a lot of submissions from around this time period recently, and it would be fine to delay this hook if people feel they ought to be spaced out more. Alternatives:
- Hook2 ... that Kentucky's 1866 black code outlawed "rambling without a job" and "keeping a disorderly house" as examples of vagrancy?
- Hook3 ... that according to an observer from the Freedmen's Bureau, Louisiana recycled its old laws in 1865, "with the word 'slave' expunged, and 'Negro' substituted"?
Created/expanded by Groupuscule (talk). Self nominated at 17:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC).
Paper references are good but they necessitate this template (for hooks 2 and 3). No offence. :) Expansion is ~5.6x. I like hook 1, then 2, then 3, in terms of interestingness. There are some dead links but none that affects its eligibility. Good work, btw. :) Sceptre (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted those links, there didn't seem to be much use for them. Sceptre, glad you liked the article! The sources for hooks 2 & 3 should be accessible to anyone over the web. Aloha, groupuscule (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot this. Since my only problem was fixed, the original review stands. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like the issue's resolved, but I wanted to note in passing that dead links are not a problem for an article on the main page, nor for any article. Insisting on their removal is actually itself against policy, per WP:LINKROT: "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
