Template:Did you know nominations/American Diplomacy


 * 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  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

American Diplomacy

 * ... that the journal American Diplomacy free online issues are known to librarians as an "integrating resource"?
 * ALT1:... that the journal American Diplomacy is published online, free for anyone to read?
 * Comment: less than 5 noms but reviewed Purnendu Dastidar
 * Comment: less than 5 noms but reviewed Purnendu Dastidar

Created by Sctechlaw (talk). Self nominated at 20:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC).


 * I will review this article. Comments in a moment.   Montanabw (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Article is new enough and long enough, hook sourced, no apparent copyvios,

The hook is sourced to the statement " The librarian term for a web site that continually updates it content is what we call an integrating resource." The sentence in the article doesn't quite make this clear, though I am understanding of the editor's desire to avoid a close paraphrase, I think the point isn't that American Diplomayc is an "integrating resource," the point seems to be that any publication that continually updates is an "integrating resource." And, to that end, the hook isn't particularly interesting on this point. I would suggest clarifying the phrasing in the article, and, though the hook is acceptable, it's a bit dull and I'd like the editor to consider finding a different but interesting fact about a peer-reviewed publication that can give us an ALT hook that is a bit peppier. Montanabw (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. I did clarify the issue in the phrasing just now, so that should help. You are right that the hook is a bit dull, heh, it is hard to find anything that is not dull without resorting to something in one of its articles, which may ultimately be the thing to do. I will look further, but in the meantime, what about ALT1? &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I like ALT1 much better. I'm letting madman bot run a copyvio check, and once that clears, I'll most likely approve the hook. Stay tuned.   Montanabw (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ah, the bot is slow, nothing jumped out at me, I think all is well here, so I am going to approve with ALT1 hook. Good to go!   Montanabw (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)