Template:Did you know nominations/Armée de Terre (cycling team)
- 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 Allen3 talk 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Armée de Terre (cycling team)
[edit]- ... that all the riders on the Armée de Terre cycling team are enlisted soldiers?
- ALT1:... that the French Army spends more time cycling than training?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hoosier cavefish
- Comment: As ALT1, this could be an April Fool's DYK.
Created by Relentlessly (talk). Self nominated at 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, meets core content policies. Hook doesn't appear to be cited anywhere though. --Jakob (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review, Jakec. Both hooks are cited, though. Reference 2 (this site) supports the main hook, as does reference 8 (this site), and it appears in the article: "the riders on Armée de Terre are soldiers rather than professional cyclists". Similarly, ALT1 appears, albeit slightly indirectly, ("Each rider did military training in the off-season", which for clarity I've just expanded to "Each rider did military training in the two months of the off-season") and is cited to this page. Relentlessly (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sentence "the riders on Armée de Terre are soldiers rather than professional cyclists" would have to be directly cited (right after the end of the sentence). ALT1 also makes it sound like the entire French Army spends more time cycling than training. Perhaps ALT1a: ... that some members of the French Army spend more time cycling than training? --Jakob (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Jakec: I'm fine with ALT1, though it's less April Fools-y. With the original hook, however, there is absolutely no need to duplicate citations all over the place. The content in general and the specific fact are adequately cited according to WP:CITEDENSE. There are no specific DYK rules that I know of that mean thoroughly uncontentious facts have to have a
<ref>tag at the end of them even if they are going in the hook. Relentlessly (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but WP:WIADYK says so. Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. One of the sillier DYK rules in my opinion, but it's still a requirement. --Jakob (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough: sorry for snippiness. That is indeed a thoroughly ridiculous rule. I've now added an extra source as documentation as well as duplicating the source, so hopefully that satisfies the rules! Relentlessly (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Jakec: any chance you could have another look at this? Many thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Jakec: I'm fine with ALT1, though it's less April Fools-y. With the original hook, however, there is absolutely no need to duplicate citations all over the place. The content in general and the specific fact are adequately cited according to WP:CITEDENSE. There are no specific DYK rules that I know of that mean thoroughly uncontentious facts have to have a
