Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Henry Bond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Allen3 talk 13:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles Henry Bond, Waitt & Bond[edit]

Created by Hirolovesswords (talk). Self nominated at 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC).

  • (part 1) – Waitt & Bond first: the article is obviously long enough. It establishes part 1 of the hook about its founding, backed up by sources. I did not find any copyright issues, but there are some gaps I would like plugged:
  1. The article is too short for the number of sections in it. Suggest that some sections be merged.
  2. I think it's important to mention in the lead and in the body just exactly why the company is notable.
  3. The article omits the legal form. It was 'formed' in 1870, yet there were stockholders only later. Thus need to mention it was incorporated in 1902 (or whenever).
  4. The role of the unions seems a bit abrupt, it should be mentioned that it was in the grips of the unions (called "bulwark of the unions" according to One Cigar) -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (part 2) – Charles Henry Bond: the article is obviously long enough. On-line scanned source substantiates the hook about his sponsorship of Farrar. I did not find any copyright issues, but I have the following suggestions:
  1. As with the W&B article, the article is too short for the number of sections in it.
  2. 'Personal life' section contains five paragraphs/sentences, each starting with "Bond". Merge them and/or jumble them up a bit so that this looks less odd. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have made changes to both articles that address most of the concerns here. I have no objections to the alternate hook. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)