Template talk:Did you know/John Marburger

John Marburger

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Casliber (talk · contribs)

• ... that John Marburger, President George W. Bush's science advisor, publicly stated his belief that intelligent design is not a scientific theory?

• Reviewed: Type 281 radar ([1])

5x expanded by Antony-22 (talk). Self nom at 05:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

• Length, format, content rules: Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Source: Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Interest: Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Image suitability, if applicable: There is a dull PD picture if one is needed for the front page: File:John Marburger.jpg Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• ALT hooks, if proposed:

Article

• Length: According to DYK check, 200 characters short of x5. Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• DYK check currently shows 5x, starting on July 31st. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Vintage: Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Neutrality: Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Plagiarism/close paraphrasing: Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• copyvio (images):
• Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting:

Comments/discussion:

Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Striking a confirmation that gives no indication any significant review of this article was performed. A "review" that marked "plagiarism/close paraphrasing" as "NA"?? This article still needs a review, sorry. Sharktopus ^talk 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Excellent article, thorough and handles contentious matters deftly, great for the front page. Just needs a slight expansion so meets the x5 requirement. Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Length is fine now; tick based on previous review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)