Template:Did you know nominations/Seaman-Drake Arch

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn per request of creator and then of nominator.

Seaman-Drake Arch[edit]

The Seaman-Drake Arch

Created by Beyond My Ken (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 02:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC).

  • For second hook, for the first hook. From what I can tell, first hook is not stated in the article, second hook however is stated and is cited and also seems more "hooky" than the previous one. Age is appropriate. Article is long enough, article is well sourced. Image is free, used in article, and appears fine on the page. Nominator did their QPQ. This is my first review so if anyone would like to double check feel free. Wugapodes (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't push the Arc de Triomphe thing. It only came from one source, and I'm rather dubious about it, which is why I wrote that it is "said to be" a scale madel, not that it is one. BMK (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In fact, doing a little OR, the Arc de Triomphe is (h x w x d, in feet) 164 x 148 x 72, while the Seaman-Drake Arch is 35 x 40 x 20. That makes it approximately to scale in width and depth, but about 9 or 10 feet short in height, which accords with my visual take on it -- it looks dumpy in comparison to the original. I'm going to change the language to say that it is said to be "modeled" onthe Arc de Triomphe, not that it is a scale model. So, I don't think this hook will fly. BMK (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, it may be rather late for this, and I don't even know if I have a say in the matter, but as much as I appreciate Epicgenius' nomination of the article for DYK, if I had my druthers I would prefer that it not be one. I think the article is OK at the moment, but I kind of consider it a work-in-progress, and am still hoping to find better sources that I can use to improve it. BMK (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • BMK, should we still proceed with the hook that we already have (which, IMO, is pretty interesting nonetheless), or would you want to withdraw it? DYK articles can be significantly expanded and improved long after they appear on the main page. I feel like we should proceed because the hook is pretty interesting, but if you don't want this to appear on the main page, it's fine with me. Epic Genius (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be my preference to withdraw it, if that's possible. BMK (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've made a request at WT:DYK. It will be closed and archived soon. Epic Genius (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I appreciate that. BMK (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)