Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Contingency Fund for Foreign Intercourse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Contingency Fund for Foreign Intercourse

[edit]

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 01:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC).

  • You are supposed to add the ref straight after the hook fact. Ref 1 is offline, ref 2 purports to be the report of a "commission" ordered by Congress, but no actual name appears on the website, and the details in the citation aren't adequate. New, long & neutral enough. Copyvios to be checked. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod - sorry for my delayed reply and thank you very much for your valuable feedback. I believe I've now corrected this. Please let me know if I've missed anything or you have any further concerns. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well you've added new online refs which cover most of the hook, but not the 12%, which still lacks a ref straight after, but apparently still relies on the mystery report, which remains without proper details. Earwig says: Violation Unlikely, 2.9% confidence. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod, I apologize for this oversight; thanks for catching it. Fixed now. LavaBaron (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You will find the proper authorship & details for this source in the note on this reprint of the text. Please add it. I found this pretty easily by googling the title. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a decent article; long enough, posted by the deadline. No copyvio issues. Everything looks cited, including appropriate citations for the hook fact (AGF on offline sources). Hook is formatted correctly and interesting, but my issue is that the timeframe is not clear (i.e., when did it consume a twelfth of the government's budget? One could interpret the hook as saying that it accounts for a twelfth of the government's current expenditures). Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 23:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, looks good. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)