Jump to content

Talk:Sandy Grant Gordon

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

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk07:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 03:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Ktin: Great hook and a decent little article. The trouble is that the hook is not verified by the Herald Scotland article (it says he pioneered the creation of single malt, but not in 1963 specifically) or (what I can see of) The Times. Could you copy-paste the relevant claim from the WSJ article? The hook could be a little cleaner: false titles are non-standard in British English, so the hook should say the Scottish distiller, and there's no reasons to capitalise the s of single. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J Milburn:, thanks for the note. Here's the snippet from WSJ Sandy Grant Gordon led a wildly successful product launch—the 1963 introduction of Glenfiddich, creating a global market for single-malt whisky—but claimed little credit for it. In the early 1960s, virtually all Scotch exports were blended whiskies, and single malts were little known outside Scotland. Re: the hook, happy to change it to "...that the Scottish distiller". Let me know if that would do. I am currently working on the QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Sangeeta Isvaran and should be done with that in the morning. Ktin (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktin: It still doesn't quite specify that he pioneered the category in that year -- but (with apologies) I don't care for whiskey, so maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but we could remove the year altogether. I'd be happy to approve the following hook; are you happy with it? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Sure, lets go with the below hook sans the year. Thanks Ktin (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.
Overall: ALT1 approved; original not. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]