Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Menschel
- 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) 11:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Richard Menschel, Robert Menschel
edit( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
... that Goldman Sachs bankers Richard Menschel and Robert Menschel, two "big-time Democrat donors", are related to E. W. Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division?Friday, Frank (December 16, 2017). "How husbands and wives figure in the latest government scandal revelations". The American Thinker. Retrieved February 4, 2018.- ALT1:
... that Goldman Sachs bankers Richard Menschel and Robert Menschel, two "big-time Democrat donors", won the 2015 Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy?Friday, Frank (December 16, 2017). "How husbands and wives figure in the latest government scandal revelations". The American Thinker. Retrieved February 4, 2018."Richard L. Menschel and Robert B. Menschel". Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy. Retrieved February 15, 2018. - ALT2:
... that brothers Richard Menschel and Robert Menschel each earned $20 million in shares when Goldman Sachs became a public company in 1999?Strom, Stephanie (July 10, 2003). "Fees and Trustees: Paying the Keepers of the Cash". The New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2018.
- ALT1:
- ALT3
... that Goldman Sachs bankers Richard Menschel and Robert Menschel, the winners of the 2015 Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy, are related to E. W. Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division?Friday, Frank (December 16, 2017). "How husbands and wives figure in the latest government scandal revelations". The American Thinker. Retrieved February 4, 2018."Richard L. Menschel and Robert B. Menschel". Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy. Retrieved February 15, 2018. - ALT4: ... that Goldman Sachs bankers Richard Menschel and Robert Menschel are related to E. W. Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division?Friday, Frank (December 16, 2017). "How husbands and wives figure in the latest government scandal revelations". The American Thinker. Retrieved February 4, 2018.
- ALT3
Created by Zigzig20s (talk). Self-nominated at 18:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC).
- QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Carmel West.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Clarence G. Child.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Reviewing-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Richard Menschel - 2447 characters created Feb 15. (new enough and long enough) Seems to be within policy.
- Robert Menschel - 1777 characters created Feb 16. (new enough and long enough) Seems to be within policy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- QPQs done and no image to consider.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- The hooks' use of two "big-time Democrat donors" seems peripheral.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Why?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- They are Goldman Sachs bankers. That is a factual description. "big-time Democrat donors" is a slangy secondary description that is not necessary and in the way of the intriguing element of the hooks that follow.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it's another one of their characteristics. The slangy turn of phrase comes from the direct quote. Would you prefer, "large contributors to the Democratic Party"?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- That subject could make an acceptable ALT hook. It seems to me that you are trying to shoehorn two hooks into one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see why. There is no causality implied. It's all referenced and the character count is fine. That's all we need.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am not really a big fan of this extra phrase in the first two hooks. I am open to comments by other DYK vets.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I guess we could trim the Democrat part from the first one, but do you have a better reason than "I don't like it" please?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I never said "I don't like it". In fact, I said it would make for a good hook by itself. I just don't think it fits, but am receptive to other opinions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- The reference mentions it all though.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am not so sure I think it needs to be squeezed into other hooks. I think the fact is a hook of its own. I'm waiting for other opinions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am also nominating two articles, so I did two QPQs. So this one being dense shouldn't be a problem.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Zigzig20s asked me to comment here. I agree with TonyTheTiger that the quote about them being big donors to the Democratic Party is out of place. It looks self-laudatory, especially in quotes. I see the "big time" quote has been removed from the article; that's good. Anyway, I think ALT2 is the best hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- What about ALT3 (just created)? ALT2 is a little boring to be honest.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Again, this hook has a secondary descriptor that is crammed into the hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- What do you mean? The first hook is based on one RS. ALT3 is based on two RS, because you rejected the first one I suggested. I frankly do not see what the problem is with those hooks.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Zigzig20s: there are too many facts in ALT3 to make it a good hook. Why don't you just stick with the FBI connection?
- ALT4: ... that Goldman Sachs bankers Richard Menschel and Robert Menschel are related to E. W. Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division? Yoninah (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I am fine with this one.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging @TonyTheTiger: to complete this review. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I am fine with this one.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Zigzig20s: there are too many facts in ALT3 to make it a good hook. Why don't you just stick with the FBI connection?
- What do you mean? The first hook is based on one RS. ALT3 is based on two RS, because you rejected the first one I suggested. I frankly do not see what the problem is with those hooks.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Again, this hook has a secondary descriptor that is crammed into the hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- What about ALT3 (just created)? ALT2 is a little boring to be honest.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Zigzig20s asked me to comment here. I agree with TonyTheTiger that the quote about them being big donors to the Democratic Party is out of place. It looks self-laudatory, especially in quotes. I see the "big time" quote has been removed from the article; that's good. Anyway, I think ALT2 is the best hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am also nominating two articles, so I did two QPQs. So this one being dense shouldn't be a problem.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am not so sure I think it needs to be squeezed into other hooks. I think the fact is a hook of its own. I'm waiting for other opinions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- The reference mentions it all though.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- I never said "I don't like it". In fact, I said it would make for a good hook by itself. I just don't think it fits, but am receptive to other opinions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I guess we could trim the Democrat part from the first one, but do you have a better reason than "I don't like it" please?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am not really a big fan of this extra phrase in the first two hooks. I am open to comments by other DYK vets.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see why. There is no causality implied. It's all referenced and the character count is fine. That's all we need.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- That subject could make an acceptable ALT hook. It seems to me that you are trying to shoehorn two hooks into one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it's another one of their characteristics. The slangy turn of phrase comes from the direct quote. Would you prefer, "large contributors to the Democratic Party"?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- They are Goldman Sachs bankers. That is a factual description. "big-time Democrat donors" is a slangy secondary description that is not necessary and in the way of the intriguing element of the hooks that follow.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Why?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
ALT4 looks good.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
