Template:Did you know nominations/Benjamin Goodwin Seielstad
<
Template:Did you know nominations
- 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) 23:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Benjamin Goodwin Seielstad
- ... that in 1939, Popular Science Monthly?
- ALT1:... that in 1939, Popular Science Monthly?
- ALT2:... that Popular Science Monthlyincluded a city of tomorrow in the air?
- ALT1:... that in 1939,
- Reviewed: Purple eagle ray
Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 09:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC).
- The article generally conforms to all the requirements -- it's new, long enough, and satisfies notability requirements. The first hook works best for me. My only concern is the sourcing. Only one of the sources seems to be about the subject in any sustained way. The other sources merely confirm the work he did and where it was published. I would like to see more sources (although strictly on the grounds of WP:GNG, I would say this article passes that threshold). freshacconci (✉)22:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- On reflection, there are actually three sources that go beyond just confirming the subject's existence as a published artist. I would say this is sufficient for DYK. freshacconci (✉) 22:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- The article generally conforms to all the requirements -- it's new, long enough, and satisfies notability requirements. The first hook works best for me. My only concern is the sourcing. Only one of the sources seems to be about the subject in any sustained way. The other sources merely confirm the work he did and where it was published. I would like to see more sources (although strictly on the grounds of