Talk:Thomas Holden (general)

Did you know nomination

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) 12:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Major General Thomas Holden was twice elected to the Continental Congress and served as a justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court? "1790 when he was promoted to major general ... elected to the Continental Congress in 1788 and 1789 ... appointed to be a justice on the Supreme Court of Rhode Island" from: Broadwater, Robert P. American Generals of the Revolutionary War: A Biographical Dictionary. McFarland. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-7864-9173-5.
  • ALT1:... that although Major General Thomas Holden was twice elected to the Continental Congress he does not seem to have taken up his seat? "elected to the Continental Congress in 1788 and 1789, but does not appear to have taken his seat either time" from: Broadwater, Robert P. American Generals of the Revolutionary War: A Biographical Dictionary. McFarland. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-7864-9173-5.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Churchill caretaker ministry

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk) and BD2412 (talk). Nominated by Dumelow (talk) at 07:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC).

• Some issues:

1. The following appears to be an exact copy of the source: was elected to the Continental Congress in 1788 and 1789 but does not appear to have taken his seat. Please paraphrase
2. married a woman by the name of Freelove – exact phrasing used in the source
3. "In 1790 he was promoted to major general" is also a close paraphrase of the source. Try "He was appointed major general of the Kent County Militia in 1790." or something like that

Dumelow, I understand it is a short article with few sources but please find a way to avoid this close paraphrasing. Otherwise, this would be an easy pass on review. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that Coffeeandcrumbs. I've reworded the phrases above. In the British military at least there is a distinction between an appointment and a rank so I stuck with "promotion" but I think it is sufficiently different now - Dumelow (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

New and long enough. Well sourced and no other serious issues. EARWIG shows no copyvio and manual check for close paraphrasing has been addressed. Both hooks are short enough and cited in-line. I think ALT1 is more hooky. ALT0 is banal and uninteresting. There are no images. QPQ is done. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)