Template:Did you know nominations/Athens Confederate Monument
- 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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Athens Confederate Monument
The Athens Confederate Monument as it appeared in 2007
- ... that despite owning it, the U.S. city of Athens, Georgia has to look for a legal loophole to remove its Confederate monument (pictured)? Source: "The law states, “No publicly owned monument… shall be relocated, removed, concealed, obscured, or altered in any fashion,” and calls for a fine equal to triple the cost of repairing or replacing such monuments. However, it does have an exception for “preservation, protection, and interpretation of such monuments.”
This is the loophole Girtz believes he can drive an obelisk through, and no one objected." [1]
- ALT1:... that the Athens Confederate Monument (pictured) cost exactly 4,444.44 dollars to build in 1872? Source: "The total cost of the monument was $4,444.44" [2]
- Reviewed: American Airlines Flight 320
Created by Mccunicano (talk). Self-nominated at 09:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC).
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Only three days old, and no sourcing, grammatical, or spelling mistakes. The article is 2,306 prose characters long so it is long enough. In my opinion ALT1 is the better hook as I assume more people would find the figure interesting rather than a legal loophole. Jon698 talk 18:42 10 June 2020 (UTC)