Template:Did you know nominations/Fort Trump

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 Amkgp (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Fort Trump

(
)

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 23:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC).

  • Date, size, refs, copyvio check, ok. Waiting for QPQ. There is one minor tone issue I tagged in text, and I disagree that this is B-class (too short, not using any of the numerous Polish media sources), but the latter issue is not a DYK problem. I do have however a problem with the hook; military bases nowadays are not "fortresses", the hook should not confuse readers like this. Please reformulated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi all - I'm terribly sorry for my very delayed reply. I've provided an Alt hook and also added the QPQ. Thanks for your patience. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I think the hook could be improved. What do you think about:
  • ALT2: ... that US diplomats asked Poland not to name their new military base Fort Trump lest it be perceived as a vanity project and not a serious military proposal? Yoninah (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

- putting this on hold for now, as the article has been nominated for AFD. If that is closed as keep, it can be re-approved at that time. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

insert correct icon for a nomination on hold. Flibirigit (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
AFD closed as no consensus. Yoninah (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I've come here from the DYK talk discussion, hope you don't mind? And giving it a full re-review. I've been swayed by some of the comments at that talk that this should run, ideally, as soon as possible even though the party conventions have already passed and IMO we're in election season - too close before the election shouldn't happen and someone rightly pointed out the aftermath of this particular one could go on for a while, leaving this nom in limbo. With that in mind, alt2 is the more suitable hook. While there are neutrality concerns about mentioning the name Trump being seen as unserious, this was coming from the US, so it seems fair - and the less connection to Trump (where he is explicit in alt0 and alt1) the better it is neutrality-wise. The fact is cited in the article, though the google books page isn't showing for me (?) so taken on good faith. New enough and long enough at time of proposal and QPQ done. Article seems satis in terms of NPOV and no evident OR or copyvio, though there may be gaps (or just unknowns?) about the proposed project. So I'm approving ALT2 only, and ping @BlueMoonset and Cwmhiraeth: re. promotion ASAP. Kingsif (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)