Template:Did you know nominations/Electrada


 * 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 Montanabw (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Electrada

 * ... that Electrada Corporation, a 1960-era conglomerate, illustrated the peril of executives caring more about the financial market than actually running the company?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Silk Board junction

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 09:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This part of the article is way too close to the wording of the source. As well as this part and this part. The highlighted text show the close paraphrasing. The first section is very massive compared to the rest of the article. Is it possible at the very least to separate the first section with subsections? SL93 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some other issues that I found - " In 2015 the Sargent unit was sold to RBC Bearings for some $500 million." sounds strange to me - the source says $500 million without the "some". "Then in May 1966, Electrada renamed itself Sargent Industries." - this sounds awkward. Why not say something like "the company's name was changed to" or "so and so renamed the company to"? "(About a year after that it was sold again, to Informatics, Inc" looks misplaced and unfinished. "And of the famous names on its board of directors," - It sounds strange to start a sentence with And in this case. "In the view of Postley" should probably be something like "In Postley's view". SL93 (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the considered review. I don't know what happened with the too-close paraphrasings, especially the first one – usually I'm more careful than that.  I have reworded the article to address these and your other noted areas.  I have restructured the sectioning to better reflect the real turning point and better balance the section lengths.  The Informatics parenthetical is there to leave the narrative for a bit to discuss the history of the most well-known thing to come out of Electrada, but I have reworded it a bit too.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. This is now ready to be promoted. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg When considering promoting this, I don't like the "illustrated the peril of" part of the hook. Would you consider ALT1 as an alternative


 * ALT1 ... that Electrada Corporation, a 1960-era conglomerate, got into difficulties after its management spent more time on acquisitions and financial markets than on actually running the business? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To me ALT1 is a bit duller, but I'm okay with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I'll put back the tick as per the review by SL93, and the promoter can choose between the original hook and ALT1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)