Edge Rewrite
// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a288c51dcc6e258a

Jump to content

Talk:Marc Bennett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Rlink2 in topic Did you know nomination

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Rlink2 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

To T:DYK

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 16:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC).Reply

    General: Article is new enough and long enough
    Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
    Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
    QPQ: Done.
    Overall: Approved. While not listed in the nomination, the source for the first hook that is contained in the body of the article appears to be <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ex-rugby-player-marc-bennett-was-joking-with-family-on-eve-of-qatar-suicide-xnsxwwzcv>, which mentions Bennett dying and having played rugby for the "Harlequins Under-21s" prior to his death. The source for the second hook that is contained in the body <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/briton-found-hanged-was-tortured-by-qatar-police-x62fjh6qg> mentions both Bennett quitting his job and Bennett alleging torture after he quit his job but prior to his death. The rule for whether or not a hook is cited requires only that [e]ach fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source (emphasis mine), so the fact that the nominator omitted the sources in making their nom is immaterial to the fact that this looks good to go with either hook. I have a preference for the second hook over the first hook, as I find the second hook more likely to be interesting to a broad audience. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply