Template:Did you know nominations/Knights of the Forest


 * 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) 05:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Knights of the Forest

 * ... that there was a 19th-century secret society in Minnesota dedicated to eliminating native Americans from the state?



Created by Peterkc (talk) and Victuallers. Self-nominated at 19:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Moved to mainspace on 28 May, article is short of 1.5k chars (stands at 1412 chars) &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 08:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

By my count, it's 3489 characters. Peterkc (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, including the quoted material. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 16:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To clarify, Peterkc, DYK requires 1500 original prose characters that don't include lists, blockquotes or other long quotes, and so on. In this case, the article has 1412 prose characters, which do include the quotes at the end of the second and final regular paragraphs and perhaps should not. The point here is that to qualify for DYK, the article needs more material that is your writing. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ive fixed the length problem Victuallers (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Article created on 28 May and nominated on 30 May. New enough. DYK counter: 2439 characters (387 words) "readable prose size". Hook at 114 chars is within limit and interesting, however there are multiple problems, which I will list:
 * 1) cited source #1 is about the Wellcome trust and I see nothing in it about native persons, except an obscure reference to a burial ground. In fact,I see nothing in it that supports any of the inline citations for which it is used. The hook information is verified in the newspaper article, except it gives the organization date of 1 January, 1863. here This should not be listed as further reading if it is a source doc? All references to source 1 need to be reverified.✅
 * 2) Source 2 check NPOV, source says "Winnebagos may have been engaged in atrocities" not = to "peaceful Winnebagos" ✅
 * 3) If it began in Jan 1863 per the Citizen article and ended that same year, it did not continue for several years? Source not cited for claim.✅
 * 4) How could people be detained in 1863 if the war took place in 1862 and per your next sentence they were killed on Boxing Day in 1862? Also, "so-called war" fails NPOV. Either sources call it a war or they don't but the Wellcome article cited doesn't talk about the Dakotas at all.✅
 * 5)For source 3 (Wingerd) please cite the page numbers ✅
 * 6) Inset quote about bloodhounds is not in the article about Wellcome. Identify source ✅
 * 7) Citation 4 is insufficient information. You have "Mankato Review, 27 April 1886" which appears to be an entire newspaper? Surely the information refers to a specific article by a specific author on a certain page? No link provided, will have to AGF that there is no close paraphrasing and that it supports statements made.


 * Barring obtaining information to complete the citation from the historical society, you could make the photocopy of the document an htlm link with a converter like lightshot.✅
 * 8) Citation 5 has same issues cited above for #4. "Mankato Review", 18 April 1916" is insufficient information.✅
 * 9) Again, need to check point of view. The source says that they did not participate in the US-Dakota War. It does not state they were peaceful and as pointed out before specifically stated that they had participated in atrocities. (I would also suggest that you make a direct aka statement at the beginning of the article as in: the Winnebago (who were also known as the Ho-Chunk), since your source uses both terms but never clarifies they are the same. Only by clicking on your link in the file does the reader get that piece of information.) ✅
 * 10) no QPQ?


 * Still need QPQ
 * I cannot really check for close paraphrasing until the sourcing is corrected. SusunW (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of the above issues have been fixed, including removing someone's inappropriate citations of Wellcome.

I did not provide a page number for the Mankato Review articles since I only have a photocopy of the page in question. I wrote to the Blue Earth County Historical Society (which provided the photocopies) to see if they can provide the page number — No reply yet.

--Peterkc (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed your changes. Almost all is cleared. Still need QPQ and full citations on the "Mankato Review" pieces. Does not appear to be close paraphrasing, but as most sourcing is unavailable on-line, will have to AGF that there are no copyvios to inaccessible data. Please ping me when the remaining items are addressed. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Old newspaper articles uploaded as local files in PDF format. Will look for an article to review. Peterkc (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That worked great! No close paraphrasing hook is clearly verified in source. If you can get me a QPQ we are GTG :) SusunW (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This is my first (and only) DYK nomination. I didn't realize this QPQ is part of DYK nominations, and I've looked at some of the new nominations -- most of which are reviewed before I even see them -- and I would hardly know how to begin. It will take me a while to learn how to do this, especially as I am very busy with work this month. Peterkc (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg GTG Perfect! QPQ is not required for your first 5 nominations. I verified, indeed it is your first per the checker. How you do it is simple. You use the tools on the DYK toolbar and then comment on each of the criteria, long enough, new enough, no close paraphrasing, etc. BUT, you have four more articles to go before that is required. Just put in the comments that it is your second, third, etc. DYK so that the reviewer knows not to look for QPQ. SusunW (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help and suggestions for improving the article!Peterkc (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. Best of luck on your next nomination ;) SusunW (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)