Talk:12–6 elbow

Congratulations!

Congratulations on appearing on Wikipedia's main page as a "Did you know..." listing. I've been involved in the DYK process, (never successfully, I might add!) and so I know the time it takes and the coordination required between between editors...let's just say it isn't the easiest thing to accomplish. You deserve recognition, appreciation and applause. Thank you very much to all the contributing editors who made this listing possible.:The Very Best of Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  14:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Bfpage: Thank you for the comment, however don't you think a comment like that would be better placed if it was placed on the creator's talk page rather than in the article's general talk page? Though you really should alter it to be more relevant to the individual people/'s work you place it upon otherwise a catch-all comment like this could be considered WP:SPAM. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:12-6 elbow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Although I would recommend a small expansion of the lead, it should be fine as it is

   "Such bans were justified as being for medical and safety reasons" - 'as being' seems redundant

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I couldn't find anything major enough to put this on hold, so I'll pass this now. It is well written and quite comprehensive for the matter. Good work JAGUAR  19:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DASH nerdery

Should this article be renamed "12–6 elbow" (with an en dash) instead of the current "12-6 elbow" (with a hyphen)? The Manual of Style guideline section MOS:DASH, in the section titled "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between", explains that an en dash is typically used to replace the word "to" in a compound phrase. Since "12-6 elbow" is explained as "12 o'clock to 6 o'clock elbow" in the article text, it seems reasonable to me that en dashes should be used throughout this article.

Apologies if this has been beaten to death on this page in the past. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Jaguar, who passed this as a GA and checked it against MOS. What is the rationale for the hyphen, if you considered it? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen an article with an em dash in its title, has it been done before? I understand their usage in the article body, but for the title, I'm not actually sure. JAGUAR  20:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

En dashes are commonly used in titles to which MOS:DASH applies, with a redirect from the hyphenated form. See, for example, 2002–03 Boston Celtics season and 2002–03 Leeds United A.F.C. season (and a million other multi-year sports seasons), Feynman–Kac formula, and many other titles where an en dash is called for. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)