Template:Did you know nominations/American Bank Note Company Printing Plant
- 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) 01:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
American Bank Note Company Printing Plant edit
- ... that the American Bank Note Company Printing Plant included an office for a counterfeiter? Source: "The counterfeiting office was in the tower (behind locked doors).[26]
Created by RoySmith (talk). Self-nominated at 04:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Several paragraphs and sentences do not have an inline citation. Some sources are questionable ("Forgotten NY" is a blog, a Geocities webpage is hardly a reliable source, and institution websites aren't good sources). - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - Article doesn't mention "South American countries". Sources don't mention anything beyond the fact that counterfeiting did take place, but not the specific currencies involved.
- Interesting:
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
SounderBruce 08:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I've moved the low-grade sources out of references into a new "Additional Reading" section, and generally found better citations for the counterfeiting operations. Maybe this would be a better hook now:
- ... that The American Bank Note Company Printing Plant had a counterfeiter in the building?
- @RoySmith: Thanks for making the source changes, they look mostly okay (a few sentences are still unsourced). I like the new hook, but I would reword it to say that the Plant included an office for an employed counterfeiter. Watch for the order of references (e.g. [27][8][26]; which should be [8][26][27]) and add metric conversions (using {{convert}}) to square footage and other imperial figures. Once the change to the hook's wording is made, I can approve this. SounderBruce 05:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce:
- Fixed the out-of-order cites you found. As far as I can see, that was the only one. Is there some tool to find these, or did you just happen to notice it?
- Updated the hook, above.
- Added Convert templates every place I saw. Deliberately did not add them when units appear in direct quotes.
- I'm not seeing any places where there's missing citations. If you see specific examples, let me know.
- The "Staged construction" section needs citations for each of the following statements: "The initial 1911 construction consisted of only two buildings; the long office wing along Lafayette Avenue, and the large press building, at right angles to the Lafayette wing."; "As of 2018, all of these structures remain intact, and are part of the landmark designation."; "The exact location and disposition of these additional buildings is unknown."
- "Post construction" has a citation that comes before punctuation, which needs to be fixed. "No evidence of that spur" needs a citation. SounderBruce 06:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Reworked the staged construction part to make it more explicit what the LPC report says and doesn't say. Fixed the punctuation. I couldn't find a solid citation for the lack of spur today (I've walked the area, and can't see anything, but that doesn't count) so I just dropped that sentence. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce:
