Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Sands


 * 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  MPJ  -DK 12:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Sands, Richard Feynman

 * ... that Matthew Sands and Robert B. Leighton co-authored Richard Feynman's work The Feynman Lectures on Physics (pictured)?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jaquinta, Template:Did you know nominations/Leonid Solodkov

Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC).


 * I tried trimming the original hook to make it work but here's a different one which seems better. It resolves the picture and citation issues but someone else will have to decide if it's more interesting. Andrew D. (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that Matthew Sands (pictured) persuaded Richard Feynman to accept the Nobel prize?
 * ALT2: ... that Richard Feynman's work The Feynman Lectures on Physics (pictured) was co-authored by Matthew Sands and Robert B. Leighton?


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review required
 * Feynman did appear as TFA in 2004, but the rules only say that Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. And Feynman has not appeared in DYK or OTD.
 * The image does not have to be in all the articles in a multi-article hook, just one; but since the rules say in the first one, I have created an ALT2 hook re-worded so Feynman comes first
 * The hook is sourced to Sands in his article, but to Gleick in Feynman's


 * I suppose that those rules were written when DYKs had to be new or expanded and so it was quite unlikely that an FA would qualify. The intent seems to be that if an article has been given a spot on the main page, it shouldn't get a rerun in DYK.  I shall start discussion of this point at WT:DYK. Andrew D. (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:DYK Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.) Both the linked articles are GA eligible. The policy was re-reviewed in 2014, a year after GA became eligible for inclusion into DYK, and it was not changed. It says what it says, and both these articles are eligible. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Good 2 Go with ALT2 - Review by — Maile (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * Image of the Feynman lectures is used in the Richard Feynman article and is PD on Commons
 * Image of Sands is PD, but blurry and not a good image for the main page


 * Matthew Sands review
 * QPQ
 * July 24, 2016 review of Leonid Solodkov used as QPQ for this nomination, and has not been used on any other nomination
 * Eligibility
 * Article was listed as GA August 10, 2016 and has 11318 characters (0 words) "readable prose size"
 * Article is NPOV, currently stable, no dispute tags
 * Sourcing
 * Every paragraph is sourced inline and online
 * Citations are appropriately formatted
 * No bare URLs
 * Tools
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector showed issues that were for the most part either scientific terms, proper names or text in quotes.


 * Richard Feynman review
 * QPQ
 * August 11, 2016 review of Jaquinta used as QPQ for this nomination, and has not been used on any other nomination
 * Eligibility
 * Article was listed as GA August 5, 2016 and has 41418 characters (0 words) "readable prose size"
 * Article is NPOV, currently stable, no dispute tags
 * Sourcing
 * Every paragraph is sourced inline and online
 * Citations are appropriately formatted
 * No bare URLs
 * Tools
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector showed issues that were for the most part either scientific terms, proper names or text in quotes.


 * , as far as I'm concerned, this nomination will be good to go when we decide on what hook you want. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer ALT2, which has a nicer image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT 2 is 115 characters, stated in the Matthew Sands article, NPOV, and has two source citations at the end of the sentence where mentioned. Striking the other two hooks. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This article passes and is good 2 go with ALT2. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)