Template:Did you know nominations/Popash, Florida

{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Popash, Florida|Popash, Florida}}

• ... that in Popash, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners retained ownership of a small section of the settlement's closed school as a voting precinct for area residents?

:* ALT1:... that in Popash, Florida attempts were made to have the settlement's closed school listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, but it was deemed as lacking in historical significance?

:* Reviewed: Steven Donnelly

Created by Cassini127 (talk). Expanded by Northamerica1000 (talk). Nominated by Northamerica1000 (talk) at 04:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC).

:* :* 16px This article is new enough and long enough. The hooks both have inline citations and either of them could be used. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but remember the part about how hooks are supposed to be interesting? I can't think of anything as interesting as a building that lacks historical significance. How about the town's name being a combination of poplar and ash? EEng 07:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

:*Here's some alts below. I like ALT3 because it only provides some information, to create "hooky" intrigue. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

:*ALT2: ... that Popash, Florida was named after a large tree that nobody at the time was able to identify?

:*ALT3: ... that Popash, Florida's' name is a portmanteau of poplar tree and ash tree?

:*ALT4: ... that the name of Popash, Florida, is a portmanteau of trees?

:* 16px Follow-up review needed for alts 2 and 3 atop, to verify that the content is backed with an inline citation to a reliable source in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

:*16px Giving my tick to ALT2 and ALT4, which I have added as a less cumbersome version of ALT3. The ghosttowns.com reference provides an inline citation to both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

:*{{u|Northamerica1000}} the source links need to be corrected. Citations 1, 2 and 3 all link to exact same place, which should only be for citation 1. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

::*{{re|Maile66}} They're separate news articles that were cut out, scanned and all posted on one page; scroll down on the page. I think it's more accurate to list the separate article names, publishers, etc., rather than listing the site that hosts the content in this case. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

:*16px And so they are. Nevermind. — Maile (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

::*N.b. ALT2 struck; the source used to verify this is not reliable enough. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

:*16px Reopened, see discussion at WT:DYK#Prep 4 popash problems. Fram (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

:*16px Follow-up review needed. Pinging {{ping|EEng|Cwmhiraeth|Maile66|Fram}} I removed the link to the source in question per WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINKS. As long as they're not linked, I believe the sources are still usable to verify content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• 16px I'm going to be controversial and suggest that (assuming there's nothing else that has verification problems, which is an additional problem in and of itself) I cannot see anything in the article that would have sufficient "meat" for a good DYK hook. As EEng said right at the top, it really has to be something to entice the reader to the article, as well as being true and verifiable. Sorry, but I'm calling "three strikes and you're out" on this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

:*Nomination withdrawn. Struck hooks; not backed by sources at this time. This is taking up too much of my time at this point. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)