Template:Did you know nominations/John Harvard statue

John Harvard statue
Created/expanded by Found5dollar (talk). Self nom at 23:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that the John Harvard statue (pictured) at Harvard University is not of John Harvard?
 * Reviewed: Carteia


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Great hook, quirky enough to make one interested in reading the article (it certainly worked for me). Length, date and sources are all fine; I've made a few small copyedits and added a couple of bits to the article. It's well written and decently illustrated. This one's good to go. Prioryman (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Does it for me. Great hook and nice article (could do with a clean up in parts, which may do later). -- RA (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Agree that the article is good, but it currently has an expansion template on it, and a clarification needed template in the Description section. Articles undergoing major construction are not ready for DYK approval. When these have been cleared up and the very frequent editing has slowed down, the article should be checked again and, I expect, approval reinstated. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg GOOD TO GO, in my opinion. The expansion and citation templates have had their issues fixed, article is now clean - there are no "tidy up" templates any more.  Geoffjw1978 TL C 22:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg The article is still subject to frequent contentious edits, and at present there are four clarification, one citation, and one disambiguation templates there (and I have just removed two to get it down to half a dozen, so the number may balloon again). Until the article has been stable for at least 48 hours, I don't think we can safely leave it promoted, so I'm bringing it back until the storm has subsided. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The number of clarification and citation templates continues to grow. As it stands, this article is so festooned that it's inappropriate for main page display. If there isn't progress in reducing these templates in the next week, I think it might be appropriate to close the nomination as unsuccessful despite the best of intentions. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Talk to User:EEng. EEng added all those templates to information he has added. When anyone has tried to remove any of the templates, he reverts the edit stating they are needed. I will not be wading back into this article as I am merely "annoying". It is likely I may not return to Wikipedia in general. I invite others to try to clean the article up.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you've run into this, and hope you'll give Wikipedia another chance. I'd stay away from Harvard-related articles, though, given his attachment to them. In my opinion, he's rendered the statue article unreadable with all the templates, which is too bad: it was a nice little article. I was one of those he reverted; I doubt there's anything I can say to him that would have an effect. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that one editor is allowed to get away with this, with apparently no consequences. I agree that the article has been rendered unreadable, with eleven templates now present. Anne (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I disagree that the nomination should be closed as unsuccessful since one editor is blocking it on the grounds that it is not perfect. The article was approved before this activity started, and it looked fine.  A possible solution would be a temporary rollback to the approved version followed by a selective freeze on changes, so the good-enough-for-a-start version of the article can go through.  Then it can be perfected at leisure.  We do not want to set a precedent on arbitrary blockage by one editor. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's at all feasible to attempt to roll back and freeze the article at a point where it is demonstrably inferior to where it is now: there's been over a month of work on it since then, with new sources and so on. The number of "citation needed" templates is down to four, one of which is in a note, and there's a single "clarification needed" template. That's half what there was even nine days ago. I think it's perfectly reasonable to comment out any information that has insufficient support or clarity from the sources, and say that it is unsupported, so it doesn't belong until it is, if someone wants to attempt it. (It's hard to justify restoring information that is not verifiable, especially if you were the one who said it wasn't good enough.) I'm perfectly willing to keep this open for a while longer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - and the problems seem to be getting resolved. I would not have any issue with putting this version on the front page.  I was concerned about the idea that stalled nominations should be dropped to tidy up the T:DYK list. They should be dropped only when it is clear that the subject is impossible and/or nobody cares to bring the article up to standard, neither of which apply here.  Otherwise, the cause of the blockage should be addressed. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I think that now this article has settled and is down to three "citation needed" templates between the lede and body (the ones in the notes are far less obtrusive), there's no harm in letting it run. The promoting editor may disagree, and should in any case check the article before moving it to a prep area. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I pulled it back from the prep because the article still doesn't seem to be stable. There are citation tags again in the article that need resolving. Also, see here. Yazan (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm a bit puzzled as to what makes the article unstable at the moment. Looks like it's getting improved each weekend, and there haven't been any changes subsequent to my approval. I had taken into account the three "citation needed" tags in the text in my approval, but I did point out that the promoting editor might disagree, which you did, though only after you agreed. That EEng would like consideration of a different hook is neither here nor there, in my opinion. I do think that he does warrant a DYKmake credit given the work he's done on the article, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, and I should've probably erred on the side of caution from the beginning. But after given enough time to think about this, I'd rather not promote this with a citation need tag in the lead. I agree that it's well worth appearing on the main page (I left the lead spot in that prep open, just in case we resolve it quickly). Yazan (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with caution. I noticed earlier today that the citation needed tag has finally been removed from the lead as a citation has been provided; that leaves two in the History section and three in the Notes. This was too late for the prep set, which needed to be promoted; I was the one who supplied the new lead hook in that case. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I commented out the unverified statements (except in the note, which isn't of that much consequence anyway), and removed the piped link in the hook. Now this is very much good to go. Yazan (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)