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.
QPQ: - Not done Overall: This is a nicely presented and well structured article that is new enough and long enough. I'm taking the citations in good faith, but the hook needs to be cited above, including the actual wording in the source, and of course the QPQ needs to be done. Downstream it would be nice to expand it with more detail of his war service and a photograph, but that's not needed for the DYK. Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I agree with your suggestions for expansion, unfortunately both items are lacking in the sources at present. I believe giving the source of the hook in the nomination remains optional. It is easily found in the article. I will ping you when I have more. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: I think I have done what I can with the (reliable) sources available to me. Please conclude your review. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't access the source for the hook. What I do in cases where my source is offline or 'hidden' behind a login requirement online, is to cite the actual text from the source after the hook in the DYK nom above, along with the source details themselves. If you can do that, I'm sure this can be signed off. Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no need, you can just tick it with the AGF symbol if you are otherwise satisfied with it. That's the correct procedure in such cases. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
That the subject made standard immigration declarations on a ship manifest is not particularly novel for DYK purposes. (Also FamilySearch is
It's a scan by the National Archives and Records Administration and therefore is a reliable source. It is merely hosted by Family Search. I also believe that although a standard declaration, it makes a good and novel hook in the "quirky" last slot. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Czar's point about the hook was something I hadn't thought of; in any event, I don't believe that we should be stating in Wikipedia's voice that Barclay wasn't a polygamist or an anarchist simply on his sayso in an immigration declaration. You can say that he declared he wasn't, but absent a secondary source confirming that he wasn't at any point during his life, the hook will need to be redone, so I've struck the original hook. Please provide an ALT. Many thanks. (Courtesy ping to article co-creator Whispyhistory.) BlueMoonset (talk
) 02:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
For those curious, Immigration Act of 1918 gives the background on how all American immigrants were made to attest to this extremely broad declaration. czar 02:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The fact that they all were is irrelevant. So what? It still makes a good hook and is verifiable from a reliable source, which is reproduced in the article which I assume you both have viewed. There was no need to strike the original, it just needs a "certified that" so:
ALT1... that British Army brigadier Cyril Barclay certified that he was neither a polygamist, nor an anarchist who wished to overthrow the United States government? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I had a read through. ALT1 sounds good...it is in the article and referenced with the certificate where he answers "26. Whether a polygamist - No. and 27. Whether an anarchist - No." in the Trans Canada Airlines passenger record for C. N. Barclay October 1943. Thank you
Brigadier C.N. Barclay Here's a picture if you want one. Sorry it's a screenshot of a microfilm of a newsprint copy of a photograph. That's the best we can do so far. But at least it works as a thumbnail, and we can enjoy looking at it and wondering if he really was what he said he wasn't ... Storye book (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Great work. I have only uncovered one marriage but who knows how many more a thorough search might reveal? They say women love a man in uniform. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, but lots of people visited the United States in 1943—what happens when we get the next hook, that reads exactly like this, except no one remembers the first time? In general, hooks should be something not just unusually worded, but unique to the bolded article. The oath would make a fantastic hook for, say, Tourism in the United States—but I find it less compelling to open that fact up to anyone who visited the United States in some range of the 20th century. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
This form of words hasn't been used before as far as I know and clearly as far as you know too or you would have mentioned it. Since nobody has used this form of words before in the decades Wikipedia has existed, I think it unlikely they will in the future. I made it more about him by prefixing it with "British Army brigadier" so the point of the hook really is that a senior British officer was unlikely to have been either of the things he said he wasn't, and therein lies the quirkiness. It wouldn't work for an anarchist Mormon but does work for Barclay. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I have to say that I agree with Philafrenzy, and what makes it even more entertaining is the picture. Would you dare to walk up to that bloke and ask if he's a polygamist-anarchist? Storye book (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT1 is look fine to me. Good to go! VocalIndia (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bermicourt: ALT1 has a majority vote, as of today. Please could you complete your review now? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. The hook is good and this is now GTG. Well done everyone who has contributed. Bermicourt (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not done
This is a nicely presented and well structured article that is new enough and long enough. I'm taking the citations in good faith, but the hook needs to be cited above, including the actual wording in the source, and of course the QPQ needs to be done. Downstream it would be nice to expand it with more detail of his war service and a photograph, but that's not needed for the DYK. Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The hook is good and this is now GTG. Well done everyone who has contributed. Bermicourt (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC).JPG)
