Template:Did you know nominations/Rosel H. Hyde


 * 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) 06:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Rosel H. Hyde

 * ... that Rosel H. Hyde was the first chairman of the FCC to be reappointed and was also the first chairman to be appointed by a president of a different political party? Source: "His reappointment by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, was the first time that a chairman of the commission was reappointed and the first time a President named a chairman from a different political party." NY Times Obituary)
 * ALT1:... that Rosel H. Hyde was appointed as the first ever vice chairman of the FCC in 1952? Source: "On March 6,1952 Hyde was named vice chairman by his fellow commissioners. The Communications Act did not specify the position of vice chairman, and there hadn't been one before..." (Collections register at the Brigham Young University library)
 * Reviewed: Vincenz Priessnitz

5x expanded by Phelps (BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 19:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New and long enough, all ¶ with citations, copyvio check reveals no problems. Hook is within size.  Hook is interesting, factual, neutral, etc.  Article still had STUB classifications on TALK page which would have disqualified, but I removed that since the article had been expanded beyond stub.  QPC verified. Hook verified with NY Times source given in nomination, but in the article the citation is to the BYU archives which I can't access. Is that also a valid citation for this statement? Or should the NYT cite be added there? MB 03:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding whether or not the archive is a valid source, I found this explanation on the Verifiability page talking about sourcing rules. Here is a link to the comment: Verifiability#cite_note-6. Because the information is available to the public in the Harold B. Lee Library, even though it is not accessible online, it is considered a valid source. Phelps (BYU) (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not questioning whether offline sources are valid; I was questioning the citations matched the article. I was reading the sentence in the "Career at the FCC section" starting with "His reappointment as chairman by" as the basis of the hook. It is cited to HUNTER, but the nomination cites this fact to the NYT obituary. I just realized that the same fact is stated in the lead also and up there it IS cited to the NYT obituary. So it looks like you are stating the fact in the hook in two different places and using different citations. If both citations support the fact, I would suggest putting both citations in both places to avoid any further confusion.


 * For ALT1, you need a citation at the end of the sentence in the article. The closest citation is several sentences away. MB 01:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The aforementioned changes have been made. I cited both sources after the sentences relating to the first hook, and also added the appropriate citation directly after the second hook's sentence on the page. Are there any other changes that need to be made?Phelps (BYU) (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I think that covers it. Good to go. Both hooks are acceptable, but I don't think ALT1 is very interesting so I recommend the hook be used. MB 02:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)