Template:Did you know nominations/John F. Adams House


 * 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 97198 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

John F. Adams House

 * ... that the John F. Adams House (pictured) has been described as the "finest late Italianate dwelling still standing in Pawtucket"?

Improved to Good Article status by ChrisGualtieri (talk). Nominated by 3family6 (talk) at 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg 3family6, according to the new DYK rules that went into effect when the RfC about them closed late on November 20, all nominations, both self-nominations as previously and nominations of articles by others, now require QPQs if the nominator has at least five prior nominations of any kind. Since you do, a QPQ review will be required for this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed: Vajunites


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that QPQ has been supplied. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I can't find this quote in the given citation. Try something else.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 04:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mentioned on page 58 of the source given in citation 2, which is 62 in the PDF browser bar.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 04:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you for providing the page number, now this is good to go.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 04:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Snuggums, regretfully, this is not an adequate review for DYK. The review cannot rely on the GA reviewer, but must be independent, checking for everything from timely nomination, to neutrality, and even close paraphrasing/copyvio spotchecks, in addition to hook info and sourcing in the article; the writeup should mention the results of those checks. We've had plenty of GAs come up short and need further work at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My bad. To give further details, the hook is reliably sourced, attention grabbing, and I find no copyvios. Article has reached GA status recently enough to be eligible for DYK.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 07:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Removing my "review again" icon, which lets your approval tick hold sway. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)