Template:Did you know nominations/Electrotyping
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 talk 18:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Electrotyping
[edit]
- ... that stereotyping and electrotyping are trades that shared their own labor unions into the 1970s?
- Reviewed: ICJ judges election, 2011 and Tectonics of the Tian Shan.
Created/expanded by Easchiff (talk). Self nom at 01:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- (ALT1)... that some important "bronzes" (Paris Opera statue pictured) aren't bronze at all, but copper electrotypes? Easchiff (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Not long enough. You need 11,485 characters; the current article is 10,592. Any way to add 893 more characters of cited information? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, you should do a QPQ review.Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)- Thanks for checking. It hadn't occurred to me that I wouldn't have exceeded the 5X limit, but I presume DYKcheck disagrees. I put a lot of stuff into the references in order to keep important but technical things out of the body. I'll see if I can manage the increase in the body of the article, and put a note here when it's done.
- What's a QPQ review? If that's quid pro quo, I had done two reviews as noted above when I self-nominated. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, must have missed it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've expanded the "Printing" section. DYKcheck now reports 11,853 characters of prose. Sorry I missed the length problem at nomination. Easchiff (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have 12131, so that's fine. Review:
- Hook: I prefer ALT1. Reference checks out, fairly interesting, short enough.
- Article: New enough and long enough. Referencing issues: "Because there was less copper used in these statues than in castings, they were less likely to be melted down for their base metal during the two world wars, and many have survived." is possibly contentious and should be cited. Technical description section is nearly entirely uncited. Paraphrasing checks (1, 2, 3) looks fine.
- Summary:
Hold for referencing issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- ALT1 is good, but needs the photo. Thanks for the prodding on references. I've added three more to the technical section. I removed the possibly contentious sentence; I had neglected to note where I'd read that, and couldn't find it again with modest effort. Easchiff (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. It hadn't occurred to me that I wouldn't have exceeded the 5X limit, but I presume DYKcheck disagrees. I put a lot of stuff into the references in order to keep important but technical things out of the body. I'll see if I can manage the increase in the body of the article, and put a note here when it's done.
ALT1 good to go, with image. The statue is over 100 years old, so it is PD. As such, having pictures of it are okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisco 1492 (talk • contribs) 14:40, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
