Template:Did you know nominations/Christ Church, Newton


 * 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 09:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Christ Church, Newton

 * ... that on August 15, 1774, Christ Church, Newton (pictured), an Episcopal church in Newton, New Jersey, was granted a charter by Royal Governor William Franklin on behalf of Britain's King George III?



Created by JackTheVicar (talk). Self-nominated at 14:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg Meets the length and age requirements. Written in dispassionate tone, the article uses at least one inline citation per paragraph. Image is appropriately licensed. QPQ not needed. AGF on offline sources. Good to go. Nice work on this article.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The hook is more factual than hooky. How about:
 * ALT1: ... that Christ Church, Newton (pictured) operated without a clergyman for 36 years? Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposed hook was approved by another editor as complying with the criteria. Further, your ALT1 is factually inaccurate--not having a rector installed for 36 years does not equal it operated without a clergyman (Croes, who supplied on occasion, as well as others, were clergymen, just not installed). Moreover, I fail to see any rule that justifies pulling this hook for essentially being less than "hooky"--whatever the (expletive) that means; when especially to the contrary the criteria says hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article; and your critique sounds like it would be too subjective to be actionable. There's nothing wrong with the hook, IMHO, and in the estimation of the person who initially reviewed it per criteria...and nothing worth holding up for the subjective estimation that it isn't "hooky" enough. --JackTheVicar (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg No problem. It'll be interesting to see how many hits it gets. Restoring tick based on Skr15081997's review. Yoninah (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)