This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Minnesota Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Launchballer talk 03:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Goodhue

• ... that after Minnesota Pioneer editor James M. Goodhue called a judge "absentee", the judge's brother stabbed him?

• Source: "Bloody Affray in Minnesota". The Baltimore Sun. St. Paul Chronicle. February 14, 1851. p. 1. Retrieved November 28, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Greg MacLeod
• Comment: Open to phrasing on the hooks.

Improved to Good Article status by Darth Stabro (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 36 past nominations.

~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was nominated for DYK shortly after GA promotion—congratulations on that—and is certainly long enough. Earwig found no instance of plagiarism. The hook is cited and interesting; my two cents for its prose would perhaps be "called a judge an 'absentee' office holder" or just "an 'absentee'"—however, the existing hook is already pretty straightforward as is. The picture is in the public domain, used in the article's infobox, and is clear even at a smaller size. Submitter fulfilled their QPQ obligation. Everything looks great to me! Phibeatrice (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Born in New Hampshire, he moved to eventually moved to Wisconsin where he began newspaper editing." Is it just me or is this very obviously grammatically incorrect? How did this pass GA review? Surfinsi (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surfinsi, It's obviously a typo (two cases of "moved"), and I really sympathise with the author since I often get into something similar. I fixed it. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I sympathize with the author, I just feel like the review looks a little rushed. First, since something like that slipped by, we can't be sure 1a has been followed. Also, have you done a source check? If you haven't, that means we can be sure that the article passes 2b or 2c. How can you be sure that its passed 3a either? Have you looked up the subject to see if there's more sources. There could be a lot more out there.

I'll tell you what I agree with you on. The article passes 2d, 4, 5, 6a, and 6b, but those are pretty easy to verify on a small non controversial article like this one.

Of course I'm unaware of any extra work you might have done on your end to verify sources and ensure that the article is broad enough in coverage, but because such a simple error was able to slip by, I can't be sure that this review was rigorous enough. If you could share the work you've done to make sure this article follows 2b, 2c, or 3a, that would be appreciated. Surfinsi (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surfinsi, I usually mention suggestions for improvements, my worries about sources/info, and always mention copyright as something especially important. This is a rare article that was already in great shape; and the lead was the latest addition that I didn't check. Now it's fixed and everything is beautiful. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the rest of the article is in good shape if you haven't verified that the information is correct? Surfinsi (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]