Template:Did you know nominations/Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club

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 Miyagawa (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion

• ... that suffragettes may have burned down Tunbridge Wells Cricket Club's pavilion (pictured) because of a reported comment by a Kent official stating women only made teas in there?

• Reviewed: Bridge Inn, Topsham
• Comment: Possibly for 6 September, the date of the national club T20 final

Converted from a redirect by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 20:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC).

• No issues found with article, ready for human review.
  • ✓ This article is new and was created on 19:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 1804 characters
  • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
  • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
  • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (14.5% confidence; confirm)
    • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
• No overall issues detected
  • ✓ The media File:Nevill Ground Tunbridge Wells pavilion.jpg is free-use
  • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 154 characters
  • ✓ The C of E has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Bridge Inn, Topsham was performed for this nomination.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 18:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• The article say the official "is purported to have said". That not only doesn't conform to the hook, but it's a pretty weaselly statement to base a hook on. How about providing an actual quote from the source so the veracity of this hook can be better assessed? Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: A mistake on my part, I meant to put reported in the article. I have amended the hook and the article accordingly. Can I ask if you or @Antidiskriminator: could restore the tick please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, that reads better now. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)