Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph P. Allyn

Joseph P. Allyn

 * ... that the discoveries of Judge Joseph Pratt Allyn were published under the name "Putnam"?
 * Reviewed: Liza Dalby

Created/expanded by Allen3 (talk). Self nom at 14:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alt 1: ... that the discoveries of Judge Joseph Pratt Allyn were published under the name "Putnam"?


 * I'm just going to go ahead and propose this. If Allen has any objections, he can say so, but i'm fine with Pictogram voting keep.svg this one off, with good faith on the offline sources. Silver  seren C 01:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The citation is accepted in good faith, but the interest isn't really there for me. Maybe a few words of elaboration in the hook on what kind of discoveries he made? Silver  seren C 01:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The hook, as written, is intended to suggest Allyn was publishing Discovery (law) related documents under a nom de plume. I can not speak for circumstances elsewhere, but such an action is out of the ordinary in the United States.  Providing the requested explanation defeats the hook's "hookiness" by removing the need to click the article link for the explanation.  Please read User:Balloonman/DYK hooks for additional information on the process of writing good hooks and an explanation as to why adding too much information to a hook works against the hook's purpose.


 * One change that can be easily made is replacing "discoveries" with "findings". This would provide a stronger suggestion of legal documents but was originally avoided because it uses a less common meaning of "findings" (things found) to describe the contents of the newspaper article Allyn wrote.  --Allen3 talk 03:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See, I wouldn't have gotten that from the hook and the hook itself, as it is now, wouldn't excite me enough to click into it. I think this would be easily rectified, however, by just linking the word "discoveries" to Discovery (law), which is what it is referring to, as you said. If you agree with that being done, then I would be perfectly fine with accepting the interest part. Silver  seren C 03:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Article looks like it checks out fine. Just that interest bit with the hook needs to be fixed. Silver  seren C 01:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)