Talk:Maypole in the Strand
 | A fact from Maypole in the Strand appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 September 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did you know nomination[edit]
- 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) 22:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the second Maypole in the Strand was built by the Duke of Albermarle's father-in-law? Source: "The setting up of this Maypole is said to have been the deed of a blacksmith, John Clarges, who lived hard by, and whose daughter Anne had been so fortunate in her matrimonial career as to secure for her husband no less a celebrated person than General Monk, Duke of Albemarle" ([1])
- ALT1:... that the Maypole in the Strand ended up being Isaac Newton's telescope stand? Source: "When this latter Maypole was taken down in its turn, Sir Isaac Newton .... for the support of what then was the largest telescope in Europe, being 125 feet in length" ([2])
- Reviewed: Broadway–Chambers Building
Created by Ritchie333 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:53, 27 August 2020 (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: 
No Great Shaker (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Both alternatives are good, concise facts and verifiable. I think I prefer Newton, however, as the more interesting of the two. Good work. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. An optional Reviewer's Template is located above the edit window. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- My apologies, Yoninah, I was trying to do too many things in too short a time. The article was created on the same day as the DYK nomination and it currently has an RPS of 1,631 bytes (282 words) so it meets the newness and length criteria. Both of the hooks are stated in the article with two reliable citations each and the facts are relevant and of interest to a reader. I cannot see any core policy problems as the article is well-written, in scope, objective and thoroughly sourced with no indication of copyright violation; it is stable and there are no images. The QPQ requirement has been satisfied as Ritchie333 has reviewed the Broadway–Chambers Building hook. I believe this nomination meets the criteria and should go forward to the next stage. As I said above, I think the Newton fact should have precedence. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
