The following discussion 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 Miyagawa(talk) 22:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Benea (talk). Self nom at 00:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, and sufficiently expanded. Clearly and neutrally written (with allowances for the rank terminology!) A good number of references. I was able to see the periodical references at Google Books but not the Rif Winfield book; the references I was able to see supported the article and I did not see any plagiarism or overly close paraphrasing. Several things referenced to Winfield are also in The Naval Chronicle. So AGF on the refs I could not check. However, as regards the referencing of the hook, I see The Naval Chronicle saying two of his brothers, not "[all] his brothers", and what I see here (ref. 10, Monthly Magazine) is that his grandson was a midshipman. Does that count as a naval officer? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
To avoid possible misunderstanding, I have amended the hook slightly to 'two brothers'. Jonathon Faulknor (the even younger, I suppose) was commissioned a lieutenant on 25 March 1813 (here is his entry in the list of promotions at the time), making him an officer. Benea (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! Add that to the sentence about the grandson, and the hook will be completely supported and can get its tick :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Now added. Benea (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Good to go! (I changed it to became an officer so the hook referencing is now all sewn up; AGF on Winfield book.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)