Template:Did you know nominations/David Suhor

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  MPJ-DK  14:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

David Suhor

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

David Suhor speaks before the Pensacola City Council about Invocations Feb 13, 2014

• ... that after singing a Satanic prayer to the Pensacola City Council, David Suhor (pictured) condemned the council for giving religion such a prominent role in its proceedings?

• Source (for singing the Satanic prayer):"On July 14, 2016 Suhor (now recognized as the co-founder of the local chapter of the Satanic Temple) sang a Satanic invocation before the City Council."
• Source (for comments afterwards): "The Washington Times reported that during the public comments, Suhor criticized the Council for making non-Christians feel like they are not represented by the local government, stating that "prayer doesn’t properly belong in politics." The Christian Post reported that Suhor stated during the comments to quit pandering for votes, adopt some rules and move to a moment of silence [instead of prayer]."

• ALT1 ... that David Suhor (pictured) opened proceedings for a meeting of the Pensacola City Council by delivering a Satanic prayer?

• Source:"On July 14, 2016 Suhor (now recognized as the co-founder of the local chapter of the Satanic Temple) sang a Satanic invocation before the City Council."

References

Created by Sgerbic (talk). Nominated by Dustinlull (talk) at 01:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

• Sgerbic Dustinlull This article is long enough (17091 characters), new enough (moved from sandbox on Aug 5, nominated Aug 6), and written neutrally. There are two lengthy block quotes which elevated the copyvio score. The text without the block quotes appears to contain no copy vio issues. The quotes, arguably, support the page by giving direct examples to the alternate (non-Christian) prayers cited as invocations at the town council meetings (as Sgerbic mentions on the talk page). They are pertinent to the issue being discussed on the page. Not sure if these should be summarized instead of directly quoted (is there a cut-off length for block quotes?), but could support leaving them in. Sources appear reliable. Images are CC by 3.0. The hook is short enough and interesting. It accurately summarizes the Pensacola event, but I was not able to find an appropriate inline citation. Please provide an inline citation for the existing hook or additional hooks with inline citations for review. SojoQ (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you SojoQ, looking into it now.Sgerbic (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have filled in the sources and references above, copied directly from the article. @SojoQ: does this address your concerns? Gronk Oz (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I believe the article to be well sourced. It is my understanding the hook fact(s) must be stated in the article (which they are) and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source (which is where my question lies). I interpret this to mean the source needs to be cited directly after the specific sentence in which the information appears on the page. Mention of the Satanic prayer doesn't have an inline source if my interpretation is correct. The sourcing comes two or three sentences later. If I am incorrect, I will gladly defer to others who have more experience with hooks than I. SojoQ (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@SojoQ: You are quite correct: the DYK guidelines are clear that "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." So I have rearranged things a bit in the article to satisfy this - please check if you think it is okay now. Gronk Oz (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: My apologies for not getting right back to you. I was away from my computer a few days. Thank you for making these changes. That addresses my concerns. Good to go. SojoQ (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Gronk Oz: I came to promote this but find that the second half of the hook is not substantiated by the article and sources. Suhor seems to have been talking about Christianity rather than religion, and about the prayers at the beginning of a session rather than religion playing a "prominent role in its proceedings". So I think a new hook is needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, Cwmhiraeth. I have added ALT1 - does that work for you?Gronk Oz (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• ALT1 is fine. Restoring tick and striking ALT0. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• This nomination is fully verified, but I have returned it from q2 as it's been suggested it would make a good hook for Halloween. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Per request of both nominator and creator, this hook is not being saved for Halloween. Please repromote promptly. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Reopened yet again, see WT:DYK#Removed from prep once again. Fram (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• As per the comments at WT:DYK#Removed from prep once again, I have changed ALT1 to read that he "delivered" the prayer, rather than "sang" it.Gronk Oz (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• ALT1 is still fine, main review as per SojoQ. Restoring tick. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)