Template:Did you know nominations/Bedford Road Historic District


 * 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) 23:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bedford Road Historic District

 * ... that the Bedford Road Historic District (pictured) is the last remaining group of mid-19th century neoclassical buildings in Armonk, New York?
 * Reviewed: Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum

5x expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self nominated at 18:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Length and expansion date ok. But the hook is not supported in article ('neoclassical' is not mentioned). --Soman (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's linked from "classically-inspired" which is semantically the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After further work on the article, I have some ALTs:
 * ALT1: ... that when the houses in the Bedford Road Historic District (pictured) were advertised as being in Armonk, New York, it was the first time that name was used?
 * ALT2: ... that the Bedford Road Historic District (pictured) has been described as the first residential subdivision in Armonk, New York?
 * Note: Source for ALT1 is on pg. 11, note 12 of cited document. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly prefer ALT2. ALT1 makes my brain do funny things. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Needs a complete review. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found  at  DYKReviewing guide.  Daniel Case, you do good work. However,  "Length and expansion date ok" is not a review.  Before this passes, someone needs to do a complete review. — Maile  (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatevs. My life is not depending on this, as much as it's sort of amusing that no one's really dived in to do such a review of such a relatively straightforward article in the two weeks or so since I nominated this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Har! Get used to it, the process is completely off the rails. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Date, length, newness, cites, all good to go. The hook is fine. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)