Template:Did you know nominations/Sumner Howard, John C. Shields
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sumner Howard, John C. Shields[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that Arizona Territorial Chief Justice Sumner Howard resigned to ease the appointment of John C. Shields, only to see Shields' nomination rejected by the United States Senate?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Elacatinus chancei, Elacatinus horsti (Double article QPQ for a double article nomination.)
Created by Allen3 (talk). Self nominated at 17:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC).
- Alright, I'm going to go through my checklist: Both articles are new enough, and are definitely long enough. As far as I can tell, there are no policy problems with either article. The hook is pretty good, and I'm going to AGF on the offline source. One problem I might see is that there is no mention of Howard in Shields' article. I gave both articles a quick, unprofessional copyedit (feel free to revert what I did). Overall, this looks pretty good. If anything could be done about Howard in Shields' article, then I think these are ready for the main page Nice work, Allen3. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- @A Texas Historian:Since when has a requirement for a complete hook fact to be present in every article within a multi-article hook been instituted? See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 94#Hook-fact in multi-hooks for a past discussion on this concern. for a prior discussion of this issue. --Allen3 talk 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Although it isn't a requirement, it just seems like a relevant fact to include in Shields' article. However, it isn't a barrier to promotion, so
Approved. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 01:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Although it isn't a requirement, it just seems like a relevant fact to include in Shields' article. However, it isn't a barrier to promotion, so
- @A Texas Historian:Since when has a requirement for a complete hook fact to be present in every article within a multi-article hook been instituted? See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 94#Hook-fact in multi-hooks for a past discussion on this concern. for a prior discussion of this issue. --Allen3 talk 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
