98:
271:
339:
320:
237:
369:
255:
159:
346:." My question would be what makes TheMilitaryStandard (the first of the two sources) either reliable by Knowledge standards or an indication of notability? It appears to be one guy's website, with no indication of its own sourcing. So is this hangar independently notable or not? The new reviewer will need to decide this, as well as the suitability of the first source.
388:
372:
Ticking this one as OK. It's long enough, was new enough when nominated, and adequately supplied by citations to sources. The two sources are both good secondary sources; HAER is a particularly solid source, with good reference citations. The hook fact is supported. Image license seems to be OK. I
316:
source is enough to support an article, this one has two. At any rate, the guidelines do not specify how many sources, they only specify that the article should minimally have a citation at the end of each paragraph (D2). At any rate, with the DYK?no, this article will need a new independent
373:
had some concerns about closeness to the HAER source, but I don't think this is an issue for two reasons: (1) this source is PD-US and (2) I rewrote parts of the article in a manner that reduces similarity to the source. --
133:
211:
281:
The two paragraphs of the article have inline citation at the end of the paragraph. (I checked the sources, and they correspond to what's written, with no obvious plagiarism). You're free to double-check!
40:
36:
415:
107:
97:
342:
Actually, the guidelines do say something about how many sources, in D12: "Multiple sources are generally required, to ensure the article meets the
293:
The question is not the footnotes, but if two sources is enough to support an article. I think it can be, but others may disagree. —
17:
258:
Article length, date and sources check out. Hook is sourced, and has inline citation. Photo license is PD. This is good to go.
309:
44:
81:
383:
351:
298:
163:
65:
195:
That's true. But this nomination cannot move forward until the issue is resolved, one way or another.
119:
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
327:
287:
263:
245:
200:
174:
396:
381:) 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Re: Notability, note that this building was written up in the
378:
347:
294:
219:
185:
147:
61:
115:
338:
319:
236:
409:
343:
270:
323:
283:
259:
241:
196:
170:
392:
374:
215:
181:
143:
368:
254:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
275:
158:
180:
There is currently no consensus right now to merge it, just so you know.
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
240:
Proposal for merge closed - this will remain a stand-alone article.
86:
162:This article is currently proposed for merge with
312:. And the discussion is actually about whether
108:Loring Air Force Base Double Cantilever Hangar
73:Loring Air Force Base Double Cantilever Hanger
8:
49:No further edits should be made to this page
150:). Self nom at 15:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
416:Passed DYK nominations from August 2012
134:List of Indian Premier League umpires
7:
308:This is already being discussed at
24:
18:Template:Did you know nominations
367:
354:) 02:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
337:
318:
290:) 03:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
269:
266:) 12:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
253:
235:
157:
96:
330:) 09:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
301:) 09:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
274:- Isn't this under-referenced?
32:Please do not modify this page.
278:01:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
177:) 13:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
1:
399:) 16:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
248:) 00:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
222:) 19:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
203:) 11:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
188:) 02:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
68:) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
344:general notability guideline
114:was capable of storing five
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
432:
384:Engineering News Record
41:the article's talk page
164:Loring Air Force Base
142:Created/expanded by
389:Google snippet view
120:B-52 Stratofortress
151:
423:
371:
341:
322:
273:
257:
239:
216:Kevin Rutherford
182:Kevin Rutherford
161:
141:
100:
56:The result was:
34:
431:
430:
426:
425:
424:
422:
421:
420:
406:
405:
404:
210:I have replied
116:B-36 Peacemaker
102:
93:
91:
87:Article history
75:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
429:
427:
419:
418:
408:
407:
403:
402:
401:
400:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
332:
331:
303:
302:
250:
249:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
205:
204:
190:
189:
167:
166:
139:
138:
137:
136:
124:
123:
94:
90:
89:
84:
82:Back to T:TDYK
78:
76:
74:
71:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
428:
417:
414:
413:
411:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:
380:
376:
370:
366:
365:
353:
349:
345:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
321:
315:
311:
307:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
291:
289:
285:
280:
279:
277:
272:
268:
267:
265:
261:
256:
252:
251:
247:
243:
238:
234:
233:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
194:
193:
192:
191:
187:
183:
179:
178:
176:
172:
169:
168:
165:
160:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
149:
145:
135:
131:
128:
127:
126:
125:
121:
117:
113:
110:
109:
105:... that the
104:
103:
101:
99:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
72:
70:
67:
63:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
382:
313:
140:
129:
111:
106:
95:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
348:BlueMoonset
295:Crisco 1492
62:BlueMoonset
317:reviewer.
112:(pictured)
122:aircraft?
410:Category
387:in 1956.
310:DYK here
130:Reviewed
58:promoted
242:Maile66
197:Maile66
171:Maile66
118:or six
393:Orlady
375:Orlady
144:Ktr101
324:Yazan
284:Yazan
276:Panyd
260:Yazan
16:<
397:talk
379:talk
352:talk
328:talk
299:talk
288:talk
264:talk
246:talk
220:talk
212:here
201:talk
186:talk
175:talk
148:talk
66:talk
314:one
60:by
43:or
412::
391:--
214:.
132::
77:(
39:,
395:(
377:(
350:(
326:(
297:(
286:(
262:(
244:(
218:(
199:(
184:(
173:(
146:(
92:)
64:(
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
