- 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) 12:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Pierre Dufault
Created by Flibirigit (talk). Self-nominated at 19:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
The article was created on November 13 and nominated within the required seven days. It is long enough and meets core policies and guidelines, including those on neutrality and sourcing. QPQ already carried out. There is no evident plagiarism and the DYK source supports the main thrust of the hook. However, the wording "and pieced together what had happened" reads oddly, like a separate fact, and I think it works better without it anyway, e.g.:
If something about Dufault's piecing together the events is kept then it should be made clearer that this is still part of what he claims. Steve T • C 14:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am aware of the review. I will contemplate and respond several days from now. Flibirigit (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am still thinking. I should have something ready by tomorrow. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have posted some updates and expansion to the article. I have struck both of the above hooks as I feel neither are as complete as I would like them to be, and have proposed new hooks below. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies; I missed your response on my watchlist. Agreed; the new hooks are better. ALT2 works best, in my opinion. It is interesting, well-worded and fully supported by the source. Steve T • C 09:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Steve: please add your approval tick. Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: the approval was given by this diff where the reviewer chose to overwrite the original "maybe" symbol with a "yes" symbol as opposed to doing it on a whole new line with {{subst:DYKtick}}. I hope that helps. Flibirigit (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't expect to have to dig into the edit history to find the tick. Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The article was created on November 13 and nominated within the required seven days. It is long enough and meets core policies and guidelines, including those on neutrality and sourcing. QPQ already carried out. There is no evident plagiarism and the DYK source supports the main thrust of the hook. However, the wording "and pieced together what had happened" reads oddly, like a separate fact, and I think it works better without it anyway, e.g.: