Talk:Execution of George Flaxman

Did you know nomination

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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1887 execution of George Flaxman may have inspired Rudyard Kipling's poem "Danny Deever"? "the execution of Private George Flaxman for the murder of Lance-Sergeant Carmody became known through Kipling's poem 'Danny Deever'" from page 156 of Atwood, Rodney (15 January 2015). The Life of Field Marshal Lord Roberts. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-78093-629-1. and "Sources claim that the poem is based on the execution of a Private Flaxman in India" from page 32 of: Rasiah, Greshan (September 2011). ""Danny Deever" and "Tommy", Kipling as the 'Champion of the Ordinary Soldier'" (PDF). The Kipling Journal. 85 (343): 31–33.
  • ALT1:... that in 1887 British Army Private George Flaxman was executed for the murder of a sergeant? "the execution of Private George Flaxman for the murder of Lance-Sergeant Carmody became known through Kipling's poem 'Danny Deever'" from page 156 of Atwood, Rodney (15 January 2015). The Life of Field Marshal Lord Roberts. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-78093-629-1.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Alma Mater (New York sculpture)

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 06:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

• Very happy to review this. Apologies, my unfamiliarity with the DYK templates may cause a few bumps in the road. KJP1 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: see below. The template seems to reject comments, so shall put them here:

• Plagiarism - Earwig gives 2.9% so fine.
• The hook is great - interesting and accurate.
• Image looks fine.
• A QPQ review has been done.

PCN02WPS - Hi, you very kindly offered to give my DYK review a quick once-over, given it is the first I have done. I'm hoping I've done it all correctly, but do find the template a little baffling. If you were able to check for any errors, I'd much appreciate it. In particular, I don't know how to properly complete the status line. It doesn't appear to like a Y or a yes. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

KJP1, the review looks good! Only things I corrected was the bit about an image - that refers to any image added to the blurb (there wasn't one here) so that can be noted by putting "NA" for the picfree parameter. To give the tick mark (), you have to put a lowercase "y" (picky, I know) in the status field. Overall well done! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

PCN02WPS - Many thanks indeed. So, I think this is good to go. A very arresting hook, which I think makes it very suitable for DYK. KJP1 (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Just a note that the lead section of the article needs to be expanded a bit (2 paragraphs at least). Rest, I think that it is close to meeting the GA criteria. Good work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Promoting the main hook to Prep 4 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)