Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Long Military Service Cross (Spain)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 05:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Long Military Service Cross (Spain)

[edit]
  • Reviewed: Songjiang Square Pagoda Pending
  • Comment: I could not find official translations of the Royal Decree, which explicitly states the history of the award.

Created by Jionunez (talk). Self-nominated at 16:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

  • The nominator has less than 5 DYK credits, so no QPQ is necessary. Ready for full review. Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Article is new enough and long enough. No neutrality or copyright issues detected and QPQ is not needed. But the vast majority of the information in the introduction is not cited including the stuff for the hook and the third paragraph beneath the table is also not cited; all paragraphs need to be cited. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have extended the references so that each paragraph, as well as the hook, are directed to a source. Jionunez (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Referencing is now OK. @Jionunez: But the 44 years mentioned in the hook does not appear in the article. Calculating the chances are high that it was 43 years and some months. But in any case the hook fact should be in the article, with a reference, but a calculation using accurate dates may not need referencing. Alternatively to fixing article, we could have: Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Graeme Bartlett: Alt1 looks great! I think an exact calculation might not be as eye catching, so we should definitely go with that. Jionunez (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • So we need another evaluator to check alt1. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Foreign-language hook ref AGF (though I can see the dates clearly). Rest of review per KAVEBEAR. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)