Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Hewitt (baseball)


 * 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 Allen3 talk 12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Hewitt (baseball)

 * ... that when Anthony Hewitt signed a contract worth US$1,380,000 with the Philadelphia Phillies, he enrolled in Vanderbilt University to learn how to manage money?
 * Reviewed: presently reviewing George Derby
 * Comment: Open to hook rewrite if necessary.

Created by Go Phightins! (talk). Self nominated at 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
 * ALT 1 - ... that when the Philadelphia Phillies drafted Anthony Hewitt, he signed a contract that included a US$1380000 signing bonus and money to attend college, at which he planned to learn to manage his money?
 * Article and hook are good, QPQ is needed. I would fix the inline so it goes to the ballplayer. And copyedit the article to avoid a long para, as it currently presents. Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Fixed.  Go  Phightins  !  22:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - any other concerns?  Go  Phightins  !  19:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Now good to go. Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg pulled from prep because of concerns over the meaning of "enrolled" in the hook (the article also needs bringing in line with the source in that regard). Belle (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article now reflects the source.  Go  Phightins  !  13:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The article now reflects the source, which means that the original hook is inaccurate (striking). ALT1 is a little wordy. How about:
 * ALT2: ... that the Philadelphia Phillies gave Anthony Hewitt a US$1380000 signing bonus and money to attend college, where he hoped to study business or economics to learn how to manage his wealth? Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good.  Go  Phightins  !  01:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Although I was going to call for a reviewer, the QPQ review being cited, Template:Did you know nominations/George Derby (baseball), is not up to DYK standards with the statement "rest of the article looks good": no mention of just what was reviewed (length, newness, sourcing, neutrality, close paraphrasing, etc.). As the nomination had to be re-reviewed and is long since promoted, I think a new, complete QPQ review needs to be done first, after which the ALTs can be reviewed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the DYK from hell. I am not doing another QPQ - I was away for two weeks, and had forgotten about the drudgery that becomes DYK. Either run the article or not; I no longer care.  Go  Phightins  !  02:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my crassness above. I still am not going to do another QPQ; I nominated this nearly a month ago, and no longer care.  Go  Phightins  !  02:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to donate one of my many QPQs to advance this hook: New Burlington Street. Yoninah (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I for one am confused as to why a second QPQ was being required, and fail to see the guideline requirement that in turn required a second QPQ. Appears to be overkill. But appears to be addressed below. Still -- I would urge editors to only require a second QPQ when they have a clear guideline-based reason.  If a sysop can get so turned off by his treatment here, a newbie can surely find this to be a place he would not want to join. Epeefleche (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks for your generosity Yoninah, and hang on in there Go Phightins!. I struck ALT1 because it has 202 characters (limit 200). ALT2 has 189 characters, and it made me laugh, so yeah, it's hooky. It checks out online with citation #2. Positive review by Epeefleche above is taken on trust. I have glanced over the article anyway, and it's objective, neutral and fully referenced. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)