Template:Did you know nominations/Theobald Jones

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 Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Theobald Jones

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Tory Member of Parliament Admiral Theobald Jones (1790–1868) had laid the foundation of Irish lichenology?

• ALT1:Irish Tory Member of Parliament Admiral Theobald Jones (1790–1868) had survived the burning of his ship when he was 16?
• Reviewed: Wanlip Hall

Created by BrownHairedGirl (talk). Self nominated at 15:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

• Date, length verified. All non-lede paragraphs have refs; all refs appears to be RS. No apparent close-paraphrasing issues. QPQ done. Both are interesting hooks but please clarify which reference(s) at the end of which sentence(s) verifies either hook as it's not self-evident to me. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Rosiestep.

The main hook is supported by ref 8 (O'Byrne, William R. (1849). A Naval Biographical Dictionary, page 594) which places Jones on the burning Ajax, and by ref #11 (Blackmore, David S.T. (2011). Warfare on the Mediterranean in the Age of Sail: A History, 1571-1866, page 254) which describes the burning of the Ajax in more detail.

ALT1 is supported by ref 4 (Seaward, M.R.D (1984). "Census catalogue of Irish lichens" (page 1, para 2). That ref is applied in the lede, because it is quite a strong claim.

Would you prefer that those refs were repeated in the lede? I tend to feeel that lede refs are redundant except for controversial BLP issues, but I think that User:Gatoclass is inclined to prefer that hook facts in the lede be directly referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, BHG. Original hook is the better of the two and its ref is verified. GTG. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Rosiestep.

I agree that the main hook is better, it's a strong statement of the importance of the topic, as well as a summary of the man's diverse career. They don't make autodidactic polymaths like that Admiral-politician-scientist no more :(.

ALT1 is a bit more trivial (notable dude survived something bad). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why are the hooks all expressed in this weird had laid and had survived tense? EEng (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note sure, really. No problem with removing the word "had", which is probably superfluous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)