Template:Did you know nominations/Jugtown Historic District
- 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 Rjjiii talk 04:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jugtown Historic District
- ... that a brass band from the New Jersey community of Jugtown was rumored to have drank and fought the police instead of playing at Ulysses S. Grant's funeral?
- ALT1: ... that an underground tunnel between two houses in what is now Jugtown Historic District was used to hide fugitive slaves? Source: Zink, Clifford (2024). Jugtown/Queenston: Jugtown Historic District. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Landmark Publications, pp. 6-7
- ALT2: ... that a pottery's presence in a New Jersey village gave it the name Jugtown? Source: Zink, Clifford (2024). Jugtown/Queenston: Jugtown Historic District. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Landmark Publications, p. 4
- Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Bear_season_2
Not sure where or how to add the QPQ? I've reviewed another article but not sure if I did it correctly. Lbal (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article was expanded more than 5x, (from 314 to 9854 characters) within the allotted seven-day limit.[1] Earwig shows no outstanding issues, but some similar wording of common phrases. I don't think this is a problem. The article is sourced and neutral, however, I did take exception to minor issues, which I have noted in a separate section on the main article talk page. After thinking about it, I do not believe these issues rise to the level of interfering with the current DYK nomination. My main problem in that regard is that the material is slightly selective and excessively bland based on the sources which are anything but (for example, the Zink 2024 publication linked above is written in an incredibly interesting and exciting format, and many of the main points found there did not make their way into this article). As for the hooks, I have no real preference, but they all check out. I have struck ALT2 as it needs to be rewritten ("a pottery's presence" makes no sense). So in lieu of new hooks, I approve ALT0 and ALT1, which I have confirmed in the sources. ALT1 adds a bit more than appears in the current article, but this is implied by the existing text and I don't think that should hold it up. Per comments below, ALT2 is back in play, which I evidently misread in my haste to write a review. My apologies. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
@Lbal: could you make ALT1 slightly more explicit in the article? I agree with Viriditas that it can be inferred that the slaves were fugitives and hiding in the tunnel but would be hesitant to promote it with those stated in the hook but explicitly in the article where the citations are. Rjjiii (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I’m away for a bit, but when I return I can make the changes. I think the nom is inactive. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I am active! Haven't been getting notifications for some reason. I would like to point out "pottery" in ALT2 refers to a pottery shop, the sources use a more antiquated term for it. Would rephrasing it that way put ALT2 back in commission? I can make the requested change for ALT1 in the article.