Template:Did you know nominations/RMS Titanic Maritime Memorial Act

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 Allen3 ^talk 12:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RMS Titanic Maritime Memorial Act

(

)

... that despite signing it in 1986, President Ronald Reagan objected to parts of the RMS Titanic Maritime Memorial Act?

Created/expanded by Mattgirling (talk). Self nom at 14:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Abbott's Booby.

Comment: I asked at WT:DYK#Special holding what acceptable lengths for special occasion holding was. Assuming it's 6 weeks, I request that (providing the hook is promoted) that this is held until 15 April to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Titanic's sinking. Thanks in advance. matt (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with holding it, and I assume no one else will. The article looks fine in most ways, but there are three minor problem. In ascending order--first of all, please correct the titles in the references to remove the all-caps. Second, there is all-too close paraphrasing from this reference, and while I will grant you that the source is concise and thus paraphrasing difficult, the sentence in your article that starts "After the Act's passing" is too close. Third, if I take out all the direct quotes, I'm left with only 1,400 characters. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback – I believe I've seen to these issues now. I never realised that closely-paraphrased content (specifically that which is PD such as the sources used here) is not counted under DYK rules! matt (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving those issues. The article is good to go now. Prioryman (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a self-nom from a contributor with more than 25 DYK credits. QPQ review, please. --PFHLai (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Doh, my bad. Review undertaken (see above). matt (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)