Template:Did you know nominations/Charles M. Williams (American academic)


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Charles M. Williams (American academic)

 * ... that Harvard Business School professor Charles M. Williams survived the sinking of the USS Lexington by swinging from a line onto the deck of a rescuing destroyer?
 * Reviewed: Kir'Shara, Phyllodiscus, and Tosks
 * Comment: There is a lot of interesting content in this article, so please feel free to suggest alternative hooks.

Moved to mainspace by Caponer (talk), Jaytwist (talk). Nominated by Caponer (talk) at 00:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Length and Eligibility as of that date (because we're behind on reviewing) are good. Concerned about the number of times the 2 Boston globe articles and the Harvard Business School article are used.  Almost to the point of being exclusively dependant on those sources.  I'll let others speak to the reliance on those 3 references, but for me it's a no currently. Hasteur (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg A second review in response to "let others speak" above. My motive here is not to override valid and useful reviews such as the one above, but to help clear the DYK review backlog by either working to speed up promotions or to clarify problems. I agree with Hasteur that it is new enough (for 7 May) and long enough. Hook checks out online with citation #2. All QPQs OK. No problems with disambig links. One external link is flagged as uncategorized redirect, but it works fine. Re the issue of heavy reliance on citations #1, #2 and #3 raised in good faith by Hasteur: I believe this usage is valid because these newspaper and university sources are detailed, exhaustive and formal obituary articles (being written immediately after his death they are functioning as such). They are therefore to be taken seriously as considered and objective summaries of his completed life. For editors creating biographies, obituaries are often the most important, and often the only available, third-party sources for a first-stop article such as those required for Wikipedia. Good to go.--Storye book (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)