Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Hazelton


 * 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator after sourcing issues caused approved hook to be removed from main page

Jim Hazelton

 * ... that, in 1964, Jim Hazelton became the first Australian to fly a single-engine aircraft across the Pacific?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fritz Bach

Created by Calistemon (talk). Self-nominated at 00:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Most of it is in shape, looks o.k., well-referenced, hook (and claim to fame) is cited, tone is neutral, no copvyio, etc. However there is some obvious padding, the birth date is uncited and 200 times statement only appears in the lede (has to be rehashed in body, please). Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added the "200 times" bit to the main article. His birth date is a simple calculation. The Australian says he died on 10 June 2014, 10 days before his 83rd birthday. I added it up for his birthday to be the 20 June 1931. It seems pretty straight forward but you think it is to much an assumption I'm happy to leave it out. Calistemon (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it ought to be directly cited in the body. I am also not comfortable with the padding (don't need to refer to him by full name every single time). Thanks Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It would also be good to incorporate sources from before his death to the article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added the reference to the birth and death date and removed one "Jim", the other three instances of his full name I consider necessary to prevent any potential confusion with his brother Max Hazelton. I will look into expanding the article a bit more and try to find some sources from prior to his death, time permitting. However keep in mind this is a DYK review. If you want general copy edits done or would like to improve or expand the article you are welcome to edit and expand it yourself. Your participation would be most welcome. Remember, this is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Regards, Calistemon (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was worried that reporting would be slanted should all facts be based on post-death sources. Good to see that fixed. Per MOS you could just call the guy Hazelton, and his bro Max. That would do, no confusion. But I'm happy to give it a Symbol confirmed.svg now that these small issues have been fixed. Cheers! Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, removed one more Jim. Thank you for your review and comments. Calistemon (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Hook was pulled from main page because there was a successful Pacific single-engine plane crossing that happened 30 years prior to this one in 1934, as chronicled here by Fram. As the hook ran for only a little over two hours before being removed, the nomination is eligible for another try, so long as a new, accurate hook is found about Jim Hazleton. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose this hook from running again. From the DYK rules: "Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK [...] are ineligible." I can see this rule being waived when the removal from the main page was not related to the actual hook or article (say an incorrect queue was promoted or somewuch), but when it has been removed because the article creation and/or DYK review was not good enough? Fram (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Fram, that is not how we've done it in the past when hooks have been removed from the main page after a couple of hours. If you are going to argue for different treatment going forward, you'll need to get consensus at the WT:DYK page. If hooks get the bulk of their time, we don't give them a second chance, but two hours out of twelve is another story. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to this hook the discussion above is mute as I do not intend to renominates because one of the sources that I used for the article and considered reliable, The Australian, is flawed. Calistemon (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)