Template:Did you know nominations/William Roberts & Co of Burnley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of William Roberts & Co of Burnley's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC).

William Roberts & Co of Nelson[edit]

Created by Bcripple (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 20:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC).

  • After a preliminary read through of the article, I have the following comments/queries:
  1. The article is titled "William Roberts & Co of Burnley", whereas the article on the Bancroft Mill engine [1] refers to to "William Roberts and Son, Nelson", as does the Wikipedia article on Queen Street Mill. I know Nelson and Burnley are only a few miles apart, but what name was the company actually registered as?
  2. At present, the hook fact is not actually cited with an inline citation in the article as required. The source for this claim must be given.
  3. There is a reference to the Bancroft Mill website, but this goes to the main page rather than a specific page/article. You will need to provide a more specific reference.
  4. All but one reference are to the Shackleton book. Rather than a general citation to the book, you should include the page number for each fact cited.
  5. The article could do with being broken into sections to make it more easily readable.

If the creator of the article can address these points, I will review it again. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

1,3,& 5 are resolved. I don't currently have access to the cited source, so can't help with the rest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The article has now been comprehensively edited since my initial review. My initial query #4 remains outstanding but should not prevent the article being OK for DYK. As it does not seem possible to conclusively prove the initial hook, I am happy to approve the Alt1 hook. For the sake of regularity, I can confirm that the article length and age are fine, there are no copyvio or plagiarism concerns and that reliable sources are used. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)