Template:Did you know nominations/Goofus and Gallant


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Goofus and Gallant

 * ... that philosopher Theodore Sider has argued that sending Gallant to Heaven and Goofus to Hell would be unjust on God's part? Source: "Since membership in Heaven and Hell is determinate, and everyone goes to exactly one, it follows that there must be a first member of this sequence who goes to Hell. Goofus, who has mental state Mi, goes to Hell, whereas Gallant, with mental state Mi−1, goes to Heaven. But provided we choose n large enough, Goofus and Gallant will be extremely similar. It is impossible to believe that a just God would treat such a pair so differently. ... Thus, even if epistemicism is true, God could not justly send Gallant to Heaven and Goofus to Hell." (Ref 8)
 * Reviewed: Alchemilla diademata

Created by Bobamnertiopsis (talk). Self-nominated at 08:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC).


 * On it. But you should be aware that the extra links in your hook are just going to siphon clicks to the page you're trying to promote. If people want to know more about Mr Sider or what wiki has to say about Heaven and Hell, make 'em click through your article to get to them. — Llywelyn II   15:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'll do the rest of the review but right off the bat the hook fails and . The article isn't about a philosophical hypothetical but a defunct cartoon. The Gallant and Goofus of the cartoon are pointedly distinct, whereas Mr Sider's (by design) are indistinguishable to human observers. He should be mentioned in the article as a legacy and the hook is probably more interesting than anything about the eminently forgettable main topic... but the hook should still address the content of the actual article, not something entirely different that just borrowed its name. —  Llywelyn II   15:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As for the rest, new enough; long enough [~4.3k elig. chars.]; sourced; Earwig just picks up the quotes; no hook atm; no qpq atm; no pic atm. — Llywelyn II   16:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's fair, ; thanks for the review. How about an ALT1: ... that Goofus and Gallant have never appeared together in a panel of their comic? Cited to ref #1, "But they have never appeared in the same drawing"

Also, I started a QPQ review. Thanks! Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 19:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 is fine; QPQ done. — Llywelyn II   13:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote ALT1, but I was wondering what you think of this alt:
 * ALT2: ... that a critic of the didactic comic strip Goofus and Gallant observed that the "obnoxious" Goofus may appeal to children more than the "do-gooder" Gallant? Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey,, I'm a fan! Is a new review needed? Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 22:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thanks. Yes, someone else needs to approve my hook. Pinging . Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Confirming ALT2 as good (I also added a link to the citation). Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)