Template:Did you know nominations/Consairway

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 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Consairway

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1992, civilian pilots for Consairway were granted veteran status by the Veterans Benefits Administration for their World War II service transporting munitions and military personnel?

• Comment: This article was created as part of Wiki Culture Crawl 2016. Will follow up with a review of another article soon.

Created by TParis (talk), Cullen328 (talk), Pharos (talk), and SounderBruce (talk). Nominated by TParis (talk) at 17:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC).

• Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/My Kind of Girl.--v/r - TP 17:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• New enough. Long enough. NPOV and all pars well cited. Earwig and spot checking found no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. DYK review started (needs to be finished). Hook 192 characters, so within 200 limit. Hook interesting enough (47 years is a long time to wait). Can't find anything to support the hook in the first source, and in the second (the .doc file) it seems to be more specific, "Served Overseas as a Result of a Contract With the Air Transport Command", and I can't puzzle out where they get "veteran status". Edwardx (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Edwardx: The first source in the article it covers that they received veteran status and I've added that source to the sentence the hook is based on.--v/r - TP 18:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you TParis (and EEng for copyediting the hook). Good to go, on the assumption that your DYK review will be completed in due course. Edwardx (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• That review has hit a couple of snags that we're working through.--v/r - TP 19:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• That's fine. Even if it is not yet finalised, you've already put in enough work to meet the QPQ requirement, in my opinion. Edwardx (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)