Template:Did you know nominations/List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers
- 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) 23:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers[edit]
The Green Bay Packers retired numbers above the stands at Lambeau Field.
... that all six of the players whose numbers have been retired by the Green Bay Packers (pictured) are also in the Pro Football Hall of Fame? Source: Pro Football Hall of Fame and Packers.comALT1:... that of the thirty Pro Football Hall of Famers to play for the Green Bay Packers, only six have had their number retired (pictured) by the team? Source: Pro Football Hall of Fame and Packers.comALT2:... that only six of the thirty Pro Football Hall of Famers to play for the Green Bay Packers have had their number retired (pictured) by the team? Source: Pro Football Hall of Fame and Packers.com- ALT3:... that since their founding in 1919, the Green Bay Packers have only retired the uniform numbers of six players (pictured)?
ALT4:... that the Green Bay Packers have only retired the uniform numbers of six (pictured) of the over 1,600 players to have played for the team?
- Reviewed: South Tacoma Station
5x expanded by Gonzo fan2007 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC).
New enough (barely, as it was nominated six days after expansion began), long enough, adequately sourced. No copyright violations or plagiarism detected. QPQ provided. I would pass this now, but as a (casual) fan of the Packers myself, I feel ALT1 is the better hook of the two, but the hook fact (that 30 hall of famers have played for the franchise) does not appear to be explicitly mentioned in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Narutolovehinata5 for the review! You bring up a good point, I guess I was just relying on the sourcing from the other article in the hook and didn't think much of it. Let me think this over and see how to best weave that factoid into the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Here are my changes Narutolovehinata5. Let me know if that satisfies your concerns. Thanks again for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- It kind of works, but now that I think about it, ALT1 might need to be rephased. The hook states emphasizes the 30 hall of famers part instead of the six retirements, without taking into account that all retirements are also hall of famers. Perhaps another hook could be proposed that mentions both the 30 hall of famers and the fact that all retirements are also hall of famers? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Just because the Hall of Famers part comes first, doesn't mean it is emphasized. It's just the way the sentence is written, so that it captures the reader's attention. Either way, I added some alternates, although I still prefer ALT1. I am open to proposed alternates. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The originally ALT1 did not take into account that all retired Packer jerseys belonged to hall of famers. In any case, I think the new ALTs are better, particularly ALT3 and ALT4. My personal preference is ALT3, but ALT4 is also acceptable: both are now approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good Narutolovehinata5! ALT3 is fine with me. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Just because the Hall of Famers part comes first, doesn't mean it is emphasized. It's just the way the sentence is written, so that it captures the reader's attention. Either way, I added some alternates, although I still prefer ALT1. I am open to proposed alternates. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- It kind of works, but now that I think about it, ALT1 might need to be rephased. The hook states emphasizes the 30 hall of famers part instead of the six retirements, without taking into account that all retirements are also hall of famers. Perhaps another hook could be proposed that mentions both the 30 hall of famers and the fact that all retirements are also hall of famers? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Narutolovehinata5 for the review! You bring up a good point, I guess I was just relying on the sourcing from the other article in the hook and didn't think much of it. Let me think this over and see how to best weave that factoid into the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
