Template:Did you know nominations/Charles S. Strong


 * 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 4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Charles S. Strong

 * ... that noted explorer and aviator Charles S. Strong wrote Hardy Boys book The Hooded Hawk Mystery and Nancy Drew book The Scarlet Slipper Mystery, and once machine-gunned a shark from an airplane?
 * ALT1: ... that the aviator, explorer and author Charles S. Strong was called "The American who discovered Sweden" by a Swedish newspaper, and traced a lost Norse colony?
 * ALT2: ... that the noted explorer, aviator and writer of westerns and children's books Charles S. Strong wrote We Were There with Byrd at the South Pole?
 * ALT3: ... that the Brooklyn Eagle in 1931 said of the author and noted explorer Charles S. Strong that "he had more thrilling adventures than the hero of a dime novel"?
 * ALT4: ... that the author, aviator and noted explorer Charles S. Strong shot a shark with a machine gun from an airplane in the 1930s?

Created by Collect (talk). Self-nominated at 22:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC).


 * DYK can only use freely licensed images. Fair use image submitted with this nomination has been removed. --Allen3 talk 10:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Did You Know area of Wikipedia. I noticed that your hooks were malformed, and fixed them for you. Note that ALT hooks are alternatives to be used instead of the first hook listed, not continuations of the same "Did you know that...?" idea. Also, an intralink to the nominated article needs to be part of any hook, and the text of that intralink to be bolded. (Intralinks to articles that are not part of the nominations don't need to be bolded.) Finally, titles of books and periodicals always need to be in italics. If you decide to nominate another article in the future, please bear these points in mind. { — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 19:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- I had apparently misread the criteria as suggesting that multiple hooks might be used for especially interesting articles. Strong appears to have been a rather remarkable person - noted as an aviator and explorer, writer of several hundred books and over a thousand short stories, etc.  How would you suggest wording here?  Collect (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, . I think that the hooks you came up with aren't bad, though mentioning only one title each in hooks 0 and 2 is perhaps criminally underselling Strong's achievements. Maybe add "noted explorer" before his name in those hooks. I also recommend adding "author" before his name in ALT1 and "prolific author" in ALT3. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 15:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Emended and added to -- can one get several DYKs for one article?  Strong appears to have been a remarkable person indeed. I feat "Indiana Jones" had nothing in comparison. Collect (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid DYK is a one-shot deal, . But the article could potentially make it to the main page again under either the "On this day..." or "From today's featured article" sections. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 16:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Drat -- could I add the machine gun to the main hook? Collect (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I see you went ahead and added the machine gun. Unfortunately that put the first hook way over the maximum length (200 characters). ALT5 is a rewording that preserves all the relevant information but is under the limit.

Five hooks is a lot to ask the reviewer for this nomination to research. I think you should try to eliminate whichever two you like the least, and mark them as rejected by putting at the beginning of the hook text and at the end. If the other three turn out not to work when this nomination is reviewed, you can always bring one of the "spares" back. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 07:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Last was a dupe, I fear. Shortened main hook, and struck the one which was combined into the main hook - none of the hooks require a lot of research for a reviewer, I trust.  Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Created and nom on same day/new enough. 2372 char/long enough. No apparent close paraphrasing. Neutral. Cited throughout. No image in nomination. QPQ not required, appears to be first nomination. Hooks:
 * Hook 1 at 197 char/under 200. No independent source verifying the two books is cited. There is documentation on the linked articles to support the claims, here and here but the citation must appear in the subject article immediately following the claim. Likewise, the citation for the shooting needs to be immediately following that claim and repeated at the end of the quote. If you fix the citations, this hook works.
 * ALT1 at 163 char/under 200. Both claims are substantiated by the source cited at the end of the paragraph. DYK requires them to be at the end of the statement. If you fix the citations, this hook works.
 * ALT2 at 147 char/under 200. Other than the claim that he has been noted as an explorer, there is nothing in the body of the article that states he was an aviator. Nothing that states he wrote westerns or children's stories (though the claim about children's stories is cited in the same source as the Hardy Boys' book.) The claim that he wrote We Were There with Byrd at the South Pole is substantiated by Kirkius. This hook is problematic.
 * ALT3 at 162 char/under 200. It is verified at the end of the quote. This hook works.
 * Please ping me when you have reviewed and made corrections. My preference would be the original hook if issues are fixed. Interesting article on an interesting person. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think I have now done what you recommend.  I am still upset that he seems to have written well over 200 documentable books (many, many Westerns, under a bunch of names some of which are still uncertain, and a few risqué books as well), been a radio personality, and yet seems to have been so thoroughly overlooked.   Collect (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Fortunately, or unfortunately, that's the way it is, given Wikipedia's guidelines. I wrote an article about the US' most prolific cancer researcher who is one of the world's most cited scientists. I could only write a stub because though she has written many papers, no one writes about her, they write about her research. But going on the premise that now there is an article, one hopes that maybe someone else will have access to sources you don't and can flesh it out :) You are good to go on 3 of the hooks, I scratched the problematic one and as I said, I prefer the original hook. SusunW (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)