Template:Did you know nominations/Frank M. Hume

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 Jolly Ω Janner 04:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Frank M. Hume

(

)

... that Colonel Frank M. Hume was unable to attend West Point because of his poor eyesight?

ALT1:... that Colonel Frank M. Hume formed his own army, which would later be designated Company L of Maine's National Guard?
Reviewed: Eliza Ann Gardner

Created by Mchuedem (talk). Self-nominated at 17:50, 16 December 2015 (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:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Core criteria were checked. Hook ALT0 is a bit bland, but ALT1 is nicely catchy. Either is satisfactory, but ALT1 makes the reader want to know more about the private army. No paraphrasing was found upon Google checking. Valid QPQ. Neutral in tone. However, I found a number of flaws in the article, as enumerated below. One of them is serious enough to offer grounds for deletion.

Your most serious problem is that at present your subject is not notable. However, it is customary to begin military biographies with the highest rank ever held by the subject. Change Colonel to Brigadier General. Add high level decorations received. Problem solved. See WP:SOLDIER for details. However, you are still left with an insufficient lead. According to WP:LEADLENGTH, an article this size could use a lead of one sizable or two compact detailed paragraphs summarizing Hume's lifetime achievements. As most readers will not read past the lead, it should sum up the even more detailed body below.
I flagged your cites because you missed a couple of opportunities to multi-reference. Also, I realize ISBNs are optional; however, their inclusion is an almost universal practice in WP. Nevertheless, your present cites do satisfy the criteria.
You need to clarify why Hume was relieved from command. He was not accused of personally fraternizing with the enemy. His men were. This from your source. I might add, the correction leaves your subject looking much better. Direct fraternization with enemies in that era could get an officer a blindfold and a cigar in front of the traditional firing squad. On the other hand, a commanding officer is automatically held responsible for his subordinates' actions. Period.
Drat! Even as I wrote the above, your article collected an orphan tag with which we will have to deal. An article is expected to have at least three incoming links from other articles to avoid orphanhood. Try linking him in from the 103rd or the 26th Division if you can, as a notable citizen from his hometown, public office holder, etc.
I know this looks like a lot of work, but except for that easy fix to the notability problem, it's just emendments that really improve the article. But if you will hang on and make necessary changes, I'll help you as best I can. And I can tell you from personal experience, it takes about half a dozen DYK noms before you catch the knack. After that, it can become pretty much routine.
Lastly, I will pass you as GTG the moment minimum DYK requirements are satisfied.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Given the serious comments above including one indicating the minimum DYK requirements are not satisfied, I don't understand why the approval tick is given; perhaps the review template has a typo in a crucial spot. In any event, this nomination should not be promoted while significant issues remain. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Moon. I like the template because it helps me focus on all items in the review. However I do not know the code to remove the approval tick, but I usually tack on a second tick when there is a problem. In this case, I missed doing that, but you did not. Thanks for catching my error.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability issue addressed. Multi-refs supplied. Supplying OCLC numbers is a nice touch in lieu of ISBNs. Orphan tag is gone, and Hume is cleared of fraternizing with enemy in this version. Good show on the revamp. This nom is GTG. I just can't find a way to rid this darned template of those ugly scarlet X marks.Georgejdorner (talk)