Talk:Harriet Amelia Folsom
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Theleekycauldron in topic Did you know nomination
 | A fact from Harriet Amelia Folsom appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 December 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Did you know nomination edit
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
( )
Amelia Folsom
- ... that Amelia Folsom was known as the "favorite wife" of Brigham Young, second president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Source: "Brigham Young, pioneer prophet"
- ALT1: ... that Harriet Amelia Folsom went by her middle name, so as not to be confused with her husband Brigham Young's other wives? Source: "Leavitt Family History"
Created/expanded by Cjstirlbyu (talk). Self-nominated at 19:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC).
- Not a review but just a request to sort out her common name. Is it Harriet Amelia Folsom or Amelia Folsom? The article title should show the common name. The name shown in the infobox should match the article title. Schwede66 18:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The issue above seems to have been resolved. Length, newness, hook fact, sources and NPOV all check out too. Ready to go IMO. (my first review, hope I'm doing this right – feedback is appreciated). —AFreshStart (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- AFreshStart, the tick template needs to be substituted to work properly, and for the nomination to be moved to the Approved page. However, you don't mention in your review why you're giving an AGF tick, which is usually that the hook fact (or some significant article facts), while sourced, are not checkable on line, thus the sourcing is being Accepted in Good Faith. Can you please explain? Also, you don't say that you checked for close paraphrasing and copyvio, so please mention the results of those checks. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, I didn't mean to use the AGF tick, just the regular one; I have changed that one now. And there seems to be no close paraphrasing or copyvio issues with the article; Earwig gives a result of 37.5%, but this is entirely based on quotes or basic statements of fact/situations where there is really only one way to say something (WP:LIMITED). —AFreshStart (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
ALT1 to T:DYK/P1 without image