Template:Did you know nominations/Harold Strachan
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Harold Strachan[edit]
- ... that Harold Strachan is a South African artist, who built bombs for Umkhonto we Sizwe, served a jail sentence, and then went back to jail for telling a journalist about prison conditions? Source: [1], [2], South African Democracy Education Trust (2004). The Road to Democracy in South Africa: 1960-1970. Zebra. ISBN 9781868729067.)
- ALT1:... that Harold Strachan has painted pictures, written books, built bombs, been sent to prison, and caught fish?
Expanded by John (talk). Self-nominated at 02:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC).
- How is this created on November 4th? You did start it, in 2011, but for DYK purposes it is just an expansion. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it's long enough, & neutral. The (very long) links provided don't cover "then went back to jail for telling a journalist about prison conditions" (first hook) that I could see. Pointer, please. The other points raised above need sorting. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok. I'm sorry I filled it in wrongly. This is only the second time I have done this in ten years. Please assume it is incompetence rather than malevolence at play here. What do I need to do to fix the problem? As regards the sourcing for the second part of the first hook, it's at The Road to Democracy, p380, as listed above. John (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
ALT2:... that Harold Strachan painted pictures, wrote books, made bombs, went to prison, and caught fish? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I love this but as the subject is still alive, we'd need to tweak the tenses. John (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
ALT2:... that Harold Strachan has painted pictures, written books, made bombs, served two prison sentences, and completed an ultramarathon?
- And where are the sources for the new ones?. And are you going to sort out the dates? you're making rather a meal of this. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- The sources are in the article. I have no idea what you mean by "are you going to sort out the dates?" Which dates are you asking me to "sort out"? I asked you about this almost a week ago at 20:16 on 7 November 2017, and you haven't answered. Please put down the attitude and walk slowly towards helping out here, if that's your intention. John (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- You are supposed to know the rules before nominating, especially if you haven't donne so for ten years or whatever. As I pointed out in my first post above, and have repeated more than once, you have nominated this with a date that doesn't seem to be correct in terms of the expansion of the article. Please look at the rules and drop the cavalier attitude. Don't dump all this on the reviewer. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- I see, so you are trying to coach me into becoming a better contributor at DYK in the future rather than trying to help me to complete my nomination on this occasion. You're wasting your time as I have no interest in doing this again based on this interaction. What you have convinced me of is that this is a walled garden which gets a lot more coverage on the main page than it apparently deserves, which is interesting I suppose. Do yourself and the project a favour, and if you're too burnt out to do a proper job volunteering to help here, stand down and let someone else do it. John (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reviewing a nomination is these days a reasonable amount of work, and I for one do not feeling like humouring a very experienced editor (admin, 11 years etc) who cannot be bothered to read the rules, and throws it all back on the reviewer, with added arrogance. If you were a new editor things would be different, but you can hardly claim that. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I see, so you are trying to coach me into becoming a better contributor at DYK in the future rather than trying to help me to complete my nomination on this occasion. You're wasting your time as I have no interest in doing this again based on this interaction. What you have convinced me of is that this is a walled garden which gets a lot more coverage on the main page than it apparently deserves, which is interesting I suppose. Do yourself and the project a favour, and if you're too burnt out to do a proper job volunteering to help here, stand down and let someone else do it. John (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- You are supposed to know the rules before nominating, especially if you haven't donne so for ten years or whatever. As I pointed out in my first post above, and have repeated more than once, you have nominated this with a date that doesn't seem to be correct in terms of the expansion of the article. Please look at the rules and drop the cavalier attitude. Don't dump all this on the reviewer. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- The sources are in the article. I have no idea what you mean by "are you going to sort out the dates?" Which dates are you asking me to "sort out"? I asked you about this almost a week ago at 20:16 on 7 November 2017, and you haven't answered. Please put down the attitude and walk slowly towards helping out here, if that's your intention. John (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- And where are the sources for the new ones?. And are you going to sort out the dates? you're making rather a meal of this. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Best if someone else starts again on this. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am willing to review this. Much has been done already, thank you, Johnbod. The original hook reads a bit too complicated for my taste, with that detail on telling about prison conditions, - that's nothing personal about him, many do it, as many write books and catch fish. Word a hook, please, along the first two facts from the original and perhaps one more quirky thing from the others. Or can we just stop the original after "Sizwe"?
- After reading it all, I'm more willing to accept the original facts as presented, but please reword the end.
Substantial article on excellent sources, interesting life! No copyvio obvious. - Article: I could imagine more lead. "Early life" isn't exactly the header for several decades, no? Any details about when he married Maggie, and her personality? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)- John, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've extended the lead, no problem. What would you suggest for a better header than "Early life"? I have an interesting problem regarding extending the coverage of his second wife. I'll post in your talk about it and see if you can help me. John (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
If I'd know a better header I would have boldly changed it. Simply Life? whoever reads further will see that there was a break in what's normally "Career". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've extended the lead, no problem. What would you suggest for a better header than "Early life"? I have an interesting problem regarding extending the coverage of his second wife. I'll post in your talk about it and see if you can help me. John (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
