Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Larimore Jones


 * 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 — Maile (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Charles Larimore Jones

 * ... that forward air control operations established by Charles Larimore Jones dropped over two million tons of bombs on the Kingdom of Laos?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Aphonopelma hollyi

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 20:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg AGFing on printed references. Additionally, "Find a Grave is not considered by some to qualify as a reliable source. Whenever appropriate reliable sources discuss the same material, editors are encouraged to prefer those to a Find a Grave link." ViperSnake151   Talk  06:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of this consensus and policy on Findagrave.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now checked Newspapers.com and Google advanced search for Jones's obituary. I have found the same or similar obituaries posted on the internet; however, none are on a site with a bibliography. Newspapers.com does not archive a newspaper in the vicinity of either the Pensacola or Bridgeport. If you insist that the nomination will fail DYK because of this factoid, I will remove it.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed; original reviewer has not returned in three weeks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Despite claims to the contrary, there have not been any changes to the article's content to meet DYK criteria for reliable sourcing. ViperSnake151   Talk  03:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There were no claims to anything but my message outlining my compliance with the procedure suggested in your reference. I had no way to intuit that you were one of the "some" who object to findagrave's reliability. I did propose a course of action for your approval; you completely ignored that.
 * Nevertheless, I have now removed his birth and death information, as I am guessing that is what you require. Do you now propose to tag the article in accordance with WP:BLP Or do we leave it for some other editor to do so? Georgejdorner (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference's sake, these are the messages I left on Viper's page:
 * Hello, Viper,
 * I have addressed your concerns about the above nomination. Please revisit it to complete your review. And thank you for reviewing me.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, again.
 * Have you abandoned this review? Or is it just that you have been very very busy?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So where are my so-called promises of changes in those messages?
 * I request another reviewer.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested; full review still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found. QPQ unnecessary and image properly licensed. Assuming good faith on offline references. Although Findagrave.com is not a reliable source, I can't see any of the contents of the offline sources. It's possible that one of the sources contains the in-and-out dates, so either add a source to the dates or remove them. But in either case, remove the entire external links section.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's see if i can summarize this mess:
 * "Somebody" somewhere sometime (though apparently neither reviewer) may object to the veracity of findagrave, so I should check elsewhere for any reliable alternative. Which I did.
 * As I have checked every source I could lay eyes upon, I have found subject's birth and death dates solely on findagrave. Given that it is foolish to run a bio without those dates, I have re-included them and axed the External links. Do as you will.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The reliability of findagrave.com as a source for Wikipedia is discussed at External links/Perennial websites; you can see what is said there, which is basically that it's not reliable by Wikipedia standards: it should rarely be used as an external link, and almost never as a cited source. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about reliability, but the funeral home mentioned on the findagrave page has its own page for Jones here with an obituary page as well, which has his dates. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say we're clear to use the obituary (there's very little that's useful on the other page that's not repeated on the obituary).-- Laun  chba  ller  14:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On it. — Llywelyn II   22:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Timely; well-sourced, albeit mostly offline items assumed on good faith; well-long enough; no issues or copyvio. Hook cited, although as a personal favor could you double-check the offline source (Clodfelter's Vietnam in Military Statistics, p. 225) to make sure that the tons are American short tons and specify that (using convert or a link) in the text? "Tons" is a very vague term across an international readership. QPQ very well done. No image. G2G.  As a side point, I'll take a moment to remind everyone: we have guidelines and rule —particularly imaginary rule bloat—is not a good thing.  Mr Snake, kindly review the actual criteria for  submissions. We are not running a  competition and you are unhelpfully WP:DONTBITE when you pretend that it is. It's perfectly fine to tell him about your pet peeves and minor policy issues, but a single iffy source on a necessary, likely-true, and hook-irrelevant fact is no reason whatsoever to hold up the  process. For example, "hey, Mr Dorner, thank you for your work and sorry about the hassle! It's really better to use #Notes sections for actual notes and to put citations and sources in the #Reference section. Please do your part to end this semantic blight on Wikipedia! If you do hang around, it's probably helpful to learn how to use the citation and nbsp templates, but those are minor issues. Also, I noticed that you have citations to Conboy [sic] and Churchill that you aren't using and a cite to an "Anthony & Sexton" [sic] that you are using but don't have listed. Given the topic, I assume that's Victor Anthony and Richard Sexton's The War in Northern Laos but if that's wrong, go ahead and fix it when you have a minute." But I can just fix that on my own (just like you could have removed the offending source) and neither is a reason to hold up the review. If you really feel otherwise, campaign to add your peeve to the rules... but don't pretend they're already there. Similarly, replacing a quasi-reliable source with a completely unreliable source just because one is mentioned in a guideline is not a "win". This is simply a case where we ignore the formal rules because Mr Dorner is completely right that we need those dates; some stated source is better than no source at all; and this is not a biography of a living person where hyperstrict sourcing rules apply. —  Llywelyn II   02:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you not see my review? I don't know if you read the signpost but DYK's been taking a battering recently, and it's better to be safe than sorry.-- Laun  chba  ller  07:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, if you were about to come through and approve the article, I suppose I did waste my time and won't count it towards my QPQ. I assumed you had disappeared or were still quibbling about minutiae since there's nothing wrong with external links sections as a concept; there's nothing about external links sections in the DYK criteria; and there is no external links section in the current article and you still hadn't approved it. You're welcome to give it your own thumbs up, though, if you like. — Llywelyn II   09:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh. Guess it was my review after all. Peachy. — Llywelyn II   17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)