Template:Did you know nominations/Steve Swindal


 * 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) 08:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Steve Swindal

 * ... that Steve Swindal went from heir to George Steinbrenner as boss of the New York Yankees in 2005 to bought out of the franchise in 2007?
 * ALT1: ... that Steve Swindal went from the successor to George Steinbrenner as chairman of the New York Yankees in 2005 to bought out of the franchise in 2007?
 * Reviewed: IOU Template:Did you know nominations/MLS Cup 2005

Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 17:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new and long enough. It's neutral, has sources, and there are no copyright or paraphrasing concerns. For the hook, "heir" often is considered to be taking place at death. It's not clear what Steinbrenner's succession plan was from the current article, so "successor" is more succinct. "Boss" is too informal; perhaps "head"? The ending of "to bought out of the franchise" sounds clumsy and needs rewording. All that aside, I'm wary that this hook "puts undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual" (Did you know/Reviewing guide). QPQ still outstanding. For the article itself, it's unclear if Swindal became general partner in 1997 or 1998 if it is based of the current April 2007 source saying "Swindal is in his 10th year as a general partner". A May 1997 start would still be his 10th year, as would would January 1998.  The article mentions a few companies that were "owned by the Steinbrenners", while the current sources just mention George.  If we limit it to the scope of who is mentioned in this article, did Jennifer have ownership stake at the time with George? The article gives the false appearance that the public statment regarding his divorce was immediately after the DUI, or that there is a known connection. The existing source for the divorce being finalized only says that they "filed for divorce".  The source for his becoming chairman of Marine Towing only says he became "majority owner".—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I wrote "boss" because to me, he's The Boss. (Not that other guy.) Correct that there's no one source that pins down when he became partner, so I took out the specific year. Changed "owned by the Steinbrenners" to "Steinbrenner". I guess it was all him at the time. I tried to make the article clear that the DUI didn't cause the divorce. I did get the idea that there was a connection though, as he was driving to his boat to sleep for the night. Also I thought there was a source that said the divorce was finalized in April. Will have to double check. I get the "negative aspect" thing, but I don't think it's especially negative, just that it's interesting that he went from heir to not heir. QPQ is done. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Article issues above now resolved. Regarding the previous hook issue with "heir", perhaps you meant "heir apparent", which would be ok. For ALT1, it's unsourced that Steinbrenner was chairman of the Yankees, either as a job title or in practice. That minor point aside, the hook construct of "Swindall went from went from the successor ... to bought out of ..." does not flow because the from side "the successor" is a noun, while the to part "bought out of" is a verb. They should be the same i.e. noun/noun or verb/verb, and perhaps even "being the successor ... to being bought out", but multiple being sound repetitive too. And I still think the riches to rags hook style sounds negative. Would you consider something restructured like "Swindal was bought out by the Yankees after he was named principal owner Steinbrenner's successor?"—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose I did mean "heir apparent". I'm okay with ehtier "heir apparent" or successor. I don't really see how your proposed hook is any less negative, just because it puts the bought out first and the successor after? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reassessing, I think my main problem is the "went from ... to ..." specific wording.  Otherwise, I could consider something like "after he was named principal owner Steinbrenner's heir apparent, Swindal was bought out by the Yankees?"—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , ALT2: ... that after he was named heir apparent to owner George Steinbrenner in 2005, Steve Swindal was bought out of the New York Yankees in 2007? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did minor copyedit to add "owner" in front of Steinbrenner for context.—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 wording is OK and supported in article. Good to go.  A copyeditor could decide that "in 2005" and "in 2007" is not needed.—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The years show a fairly quick turnaround from heir apparent to castoff, but sure, it's not totally necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)