Template:Did you know nominations/Maricopa County Courthouse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: rejected by Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Given that the nominator hasn't been able to address the issues raised in over a month, and the concerns expressed by both Cbl62 and Crisco 1492, the nomination is being closed as unsuccessful. Sorry it didn't work out this time.

DYK toolbox

Maricopa County Courthouse[edit]

(
)

Maricopa County Courthouse as seen from Jefferson Street

Created by Raymie (talk). Self nominated at 02:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

  • ALT1 gets a nomination for perhaps the least enticing hook ever. Howzabout
ALT2 ... that the first trial of Ernesto Miranda, which led to Miranda v. Arizona and the ubiquitous Miranda warning, was held in the Maricopa County Courthouse (pictured)?

(If this hook is thought desirable I'll be happy to add the minor additional sourcing needed.) EEng (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I think that might be a little long personally, though it is below 200 characters. Anyone else want to offer advice between the first proposal and ALT2? Raymie (t • c) 06:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that the first trial of Ernesto Miranda, which eventually led to the ubiquitous Miranda warning, was held in the Maricopa County Courthouse (pictured)? EEng (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Perfect. I fixed one word to copy edit. Raymie (t • c) 04:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I added a cite for "ubiquitous". EEng (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. And isn't this way better than an office-furniture bidding scandal?

  • Article is new enough and long enough. However, there are many long passages and at least one entire paragraph that lack in-line citations. This needs to be beefed up. Also, fuller details are needed for the citation to the "Nomination form to the National Register," particularly since most of the article is based on this document. Citation should include, at minimum, date and author of the document. Also, the nomination form is very long, 27 single-spaced pages. Since most of the article is based on it, it is important that it not be paraphrased too closely. A dupe detector check isn't possible for the form, so I'd ask the nominator to give it a careful pass-through to make sure there is no unduly close paraphrasing or plagiarism. Also, to assist in making sure that citations are accurate, we really need page cites for the various claims. For each fact based on the form, a specific page should be given where the information could be found. This is not so different than citing a book, and in that case, a page cite is needed. Photo is fine, and QPQ is satisfied. The alt 3 hook is interesting and short enough. If we can get by these other hurdles, I'll take another look. Cbl62 (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I wish I had time to do these things, but school started for me and I probably won't. If someone else wouldn't mind picking up the issues that'd be excellent. Sorry @Cbl62:. Raymie (t • c) 04:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't mean to be a hard-ass but, where the article is almost entirely based on lengthy document of this type, it's near impossible to check the article for accuracy and absence of copyright violation, unduly close paraphrasing, etc., unless page cites are included. Cbl62 (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I ran several phrases from the article that use unusual works through Google search, such as "documents, emblems and other ephemera, was mortared inside with a silver trowel". The only hits garnered led back to this article. I think we can rule out copyright vio.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Aside from possible paraphrasing concerns, I'm worried that quite a bit of the article remains unsourced. I don't think this should go on the main page, considering the previous drama over articles which were in policy but not every sentence was referenced — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that the nominator hasn't been able to address the issues raised in over a month, and the concerns expressed by both Cbl62 and Crisco 1492, the nomination is being closed as unsuccessful. Sorry it didn't work out this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Maricopa_County_Courthouse&oldid=629229821"