Template:Did you know nominations/Research Enterprises Limited


 * 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) 03:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Research Enterprises Limited

 * ... that in its six short years of operation after being created at the urging of General McNaughton, Research Enterprises Limited produced $220 million worth of radar systems (pictured) and optics, and became the largest employer in Toronto's Leaside area?
 * Reviewed: Forced seduction.

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 13:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Kind of baroque hook, MM, doncha think? Maybe invest some of this verbiage in context e.g. explain it's WWII. BTW, that scary officer scowling out from the article would have been great for Halloween. EEng (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Wanna just remove everything after the last comma? And the surprising thing about that guy is he's Canadian. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that in its six years of operation after being created at General McNaughton's urging after the outbreak of World WarII, Research Enterprises Limited produced $220 million worth of radar systems (pictured) and optics? EEng (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Still need a review though... do you mind? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And one thing... considering the first glass was in 1941, do you think it should be five years? Either one is arguable, but I think "operation" sort of implies the later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm starting this review now and will finish tomorrow. Definitely new and long enough, well-referenced, spot checks reveal no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. QPQ ok. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Both hooks are way over 200 characters. I recommend the following:


 * ALT2 ... that in its six years of existence during and after World War II, Toronto-based Research Enterprises Limited produced C$220 million worth of radar systems (pictured) and optics?


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Source checks out. Image is PD.  It would be nice if it were clarified whether the figure is in US or Canadian dollars. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Caveat: the article says $220 million of "radios, radar systems and optical instruments", though from reading the source, it would appear that the "Radio Division" was for producing radar systems. I'm going to pull "radios" from the article and add an inline source citation after the $220 million sentence per DYK rules; nominator Maury Markowitz can decide whether this and the ALT2 hook is okay. (I've struck the original and ALT1 because they are indeed too long.) The $220 million in the article itself is clearly listed as Canadian (since the source is a Canadian book about a Canadian town, I would expect Canadian dollars), but I'm not sure whether "$" needs to be changed to "C$" since the context is Canadian. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Antony-22, are you okay with it, or would you rather change the dollar sign? I'm happy to put a tick on ALT2 once you decide on that. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer that Canadian be specified (and have added this to ALT2), but if the nominator objects than I'm fine either way. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Maury Markowitz said "looks fine to me" re ALT2, so I'm restoring the tick per your earlier reviews and my check of ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I can't find the hook fact in the given source, page 85 of Leaside (Pitfield, 2008). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * G S Palmer, mea culpa, it looks like some of the needed info was on page 84 of that source as well as 85; I've adjusted the citation page numbers. Please recheck, and if you're satisfied, restore the tick. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Page 84 isn't available in the preview (for me, at least) but I will AGF and restore the tick.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)