Template:Did you know nominations/Lloyd L. Gaines

The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lloyd L. Gaines

(

)

... that Thurgood Marshall said of Lloyd L. Gaines: "I have never lost the pain of having so many people spend so much time and money on him, just to have him disappear" 73 years ago today?

ALT1:... that, if Lloyd L. Gaines reappeared today, 73 years after his disappearance, he might be able to practice law in Missouri despite no legal training whatsoever?
Reviewed: Kaytek the Wizard
Comment: Sorry for the slight delay finishing this up. I would like it to run on March 19, as noted in the hook the anniversary of Gaines's disappearance.

Created/expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self nom at 21:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Article is supported by inline citations. Images in article either have fair use rationale, have copyright tag or are fair use. All good. Article reads as neutral enough. People could cite POV issues an WP:UNDUE possibly if they were being a bit vindictive because most of the material covers a court case and investigation into his disappearance but I'm not sure how this would be solved other than a rename and all the information really does appear to belong on one article and wouldn't have a clue how to rename. So yes, seems fine to me. Plagiarism check [http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.riteme.site%2Fwiki%2FLloyd_L._Gaines&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riverfronttimes.com%2Fcontent%2FprintVersion%2F220398%2F&minwords=2&minchars=13 looks like false positives because of quoted text appropriately cited in the article. No concerns with other spot checks of online sources available to me. Hook is interesting enough. QPQ was done. Hook is properly formatted.

Going to ignore the timeliness bit as it was about three days outside and it did meet the five fold expansion criteria as of 5 March: "Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 63 edits ago on March 5, 2012".
That offline and paywall sources support the text and are free of plagiarism. That the hook related text is supported by citation in the text. --LauraHale (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Good to go. --LauraHale (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)