Talk:J. Michael Lane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has (at the time of writing) the incorrect father in his Early life. That is his stepfather. Below is the 1940 census. I'm about to fix the article a wee little bit.Kurtdriver (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"United States Census, 1940," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:K4FR-R2D : 25 May 2020), Micheal Lane in household of Alfred Lewis, Ward 7, Newton, Newton City, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States; citing enumeration district (ED) 9-459, sheet 68A, line 3, family 1, Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, NARA digital publication T627. Records of the Bureau of the Census, 1790 - 2007, RG 29. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 2012, roll 1616.

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 Yoninah (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
J. Michael Lane in 1980
J. Michael Lane in 1980

Created by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 17:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]


  • Reviewed. Item appeared in In the news on 24 October, which I believe makes it ineligible? This is my first DYK review so appreciate a second opinion. DrThneed (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DrThneed, Thanks firstly for undertaking to review this hook. This Eligibility Criteria -- specifically says articles having appeared with *bold link* under the "In the news" section shall not be considered for DYKs. RDs are not bold links and hence should be permissible for DYKs. This topic was specifically discussed in 2014, and was the basis for the phrase *bold link* being added to the criteria. More details here. Appreciate your efforts in reviewing this one. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you, sorry to have missed that. So the the article is new enough, long enough, is appropriately sourced and has NPV. Copyvio is fine I think, both hooks are within length, interesting, are included in the page and are sourced appropriately. The article has no dispute templates, the image is suitable, included in the article, and is indeed in the public domain. I see no QPQ? I chcecked your talk page for DYK nominations but see none listed (but not this one either)? I prefer the main hook rather than the alt, but the alt might have greater appeal given the current pandemic. In summary I'll complete review when QPQ satisfied. DrThneed (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ktin Returning to say I just found that QPQ check tool that shows you have one previous nomination to DYK, so this would be your second freebie, if confirmed this is good to go, but still appreciate a second opinion from a more experienced reviewer as this is my first DYK review. DrThneed (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DrThneed, Thanks so much. I was a co-nominator on the other DYK where I didn't do much. I have been having a bit of a struggle in figuring QPQ and doing it right. So, I appreciate the freebie pass. I will definitely figure this one out and do it the right way shortly. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have changed the symbol to match that I think this is fine, and hope another editor will confirm for me that I have reviewed correctly. There's certainly a lot to figure out with the entire DYK process! DrThneed (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DrThneed, Thanks so much. I am trying to learn along as well. DYK is super new to me as well :) That said, do you mind reading the alt hook and giving me your two cents on that one? I can edit it if needed. Thanks again. Just want the selecting folks (is that even a term?) to have a choice between the two hooks. Ktin (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ktin, no problem. It looks fine to me technically but I would be inclined, seeing as you are well within the max character count, to insert "his" in front of team, just to make it slightly easier to read. Given that containment of viruses is likely to be of wide interest at the moment, this might be the hook to go with, although it is more technical than the first. DrThneed (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DrThneed, Agree with you re: the topical attractiveness of the second hook, but, might suffer from it being a tad complicated. Particularly, the text in quotes that might not jump out at others. Let's see. Cheers. I will hold off on adding 'his team' just for now, if that is alright, because I do not know if he had directive relationship (i.e. *his* team). Ktin (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote ALT0, but the page doesn't say anything about playing a "significant" role. The New York Times article calls him one of the "generals". I would suggest calling it a "leading role" and adding that to the lead and hook. Yoninah (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah, hello there. Done. Added "leading" to the lede on the article and onto the hook. Thanks. Is the recommendation to go with hook1? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. ALT1 is too wordy and technical.
  • I'm restoring the thread for ALT0 so other editors can follow this discussion. Restoring tick per DrThneed's review. Yoninah (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._Michael_Lane&oldid=1205174115"