Template:Did you know nominations/Noel Phillips

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 Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Noel Phillips

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that first-class cricketer Noel Phillips rose from lieutenant to lieutenant-colonel in the same battalion during the First World War?
  • ALT1:... that during the First World War Noel Phillips commanded the same battalion into which he had first been commissioned as a second lieutenant?
  • ALT2:... that Noel Phillips rejoined the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment as a lieutenant in 1915 and by the end of the next year was commanding one of its battalions?
  • ALT3:... that Noel Phillips rejoined the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment as a lieutenant in 1915 and by 1916 was an acting lieutenant-colonel?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chengjia (1/2)

Created by AssociateAffiliate (talk) and Dumelow (talk). Nominated by Dumelow (talk) at 20:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

I like this one, but it may be possible to make the hook a bit snappier. Of the ALTs given I prefer ALT2, but what do you think of:

ALT4:... that Noel Phillips joined the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment as a lieutenant and by the following year was commanding its 3rd battalion?

• Hi Gog, thanks for the review. I am happy with the alt proposed - I used "rejoined" in my alt, as he had served previously but as long as it isn't perceived as misleading I have no issue with it - Dumelow (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Dumelow: I left out "re" as it seemed to over confuse the hook - I tend to like 'em simple - and "joined" is factually, if slightly narrowly, accurate. (Ie, I don't think that it is misleading in context, and anyone who cares will click through and read the full details anyway.) But it is your nom; if you are not entirely happy let's fall back on ALT2, or see if we can come up with one you like better. There is certainly plenty of material in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Gog, I am happy with joined - Dumelow (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Solidly sourced, reasonably interesting broadly, more so to the militarily inclined. A solid article. Good to go. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)