Template:Did you know nominations/Newell Boathouse (Harvard University)

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Newell Boathouse (Harvard University)[edit]

(

)

... that Harvard University's Newell Boathouse stands on land for which Harvard pays $1 per year under a lease lasting one thousand years‍—‌after which Harvard can renew for another thousand years? Source: "There are some incredible deals when it comes to leasing state property... The lease for Harvard’s Newall [sic] Boathouse... Harvard can rent the prime riverfront space for a dollar a year for a thousand years... In fact, it even gives Harvard an option for another 1,000 years." [1]

Reviewed: ~~Template:Did you know nominations/Culley Run~~ Template:Did you know nominations/Big Run (West Branch Fishing Creek) ‎

Created by EEng (talk). Self-nominated at 00:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

Good candidate for last slot, if I may suggest. E Eng 19:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Starting review. QPQ has already been used for your nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Lionel de Jersey Harvard. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

How embarrassing -- I must have lost track. How do you check that, anyway? I've listed another, which I'm pretty sure hasn't been used. E Eng 20:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked under "What Links Here" on Template:Did you know nominations/Culley Run. The only DYK template listed there should be this one.
Haven't you reviewed a hook since January 2015? Nowadays we'd say that the QPQ you just provided is not adequate, as it just says "GTG".
Here's a review of your article: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Please provide a more detailed QPQ, and we'll be good to go. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, as you know I've been on a bit of a DYK hiatus for a year+, so since then I've been drawing on my substantial bank of old QPQs for the occasional nom I do now and then. It may very well be that a curt report of "GTG" isn't acceptable nowadays, but it was back then so I don't see why I can't use it as a QPQ. E Eng 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @BlueMoonset: for guidance here. Back in January 2015, that review was accepted and promoted, even though it didn't cite policy. Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This better not turn out like when the government suddenly changes currency and all the old bills you have buried in coffee cans are no good any more. E Eng 21:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

With a backlog of 140 or so nominations needing review, I think you might just do a new one. ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I accumulated my little piggy bank by doing a shitload of reviews the last time there was a huge backlog. I've paid my dues. E Eng 06:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Let me contribute one of the many reviews I've been doing lately. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think that's necessary, but nonetheless I'll accept. To be honest the nasty environment re errors that now prevails has caused me to mostly restrict myself to just "hooking", which I think is my true calling anyway. E Eng 14:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)