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) 06:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
... that Pendleton Dudley refused to talk about the work he did to launch
Woodrow Wilson's political career, because revelation of the details would be "damaging"?
ALT-1:... that Pendleton Dudley refused to talk about the work he did to launch
Woodrow Wilson's political career, because revelation of the details would be "damaging to our profession (
public relations)"?
Created by
DarjeelingTea (
talk). Self-nominated at 01:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC).
. The article is new (created on 26 March) and it is also long enough. It cites sources with inline citations and is free of close paraphrasing issues. My concern is that the referred source does not fully substantiates the hook fact. According to the cited source (and the article), Dudley specified that the revelation of the details would be "damaging to our profession" (that is, to PR). However, the hook could easily be interpreted that the revelation would be damaging to Wilson's fame.Borsoka (
talk) 14:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I made the same inference!
Edwardx (
talk) 23:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Borsoka - thanks for the catch, I meant to include that, not sure how I omitted it. Have proposed an Alt-1.
DarjeelingTea (
talk) 20:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
My concern is that ALT1 is too long. What about the following ALT?
Borsoka (
talk) 03:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)