Talk:Marie Empress

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 Kingsif (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Artist's impression of Marie Empress's disappearance

• ... or does anyone know, what happened to UK actress Marie Empress (pictured) last seen on a Cunard liner bound for New York?Source: the day before
  • ALT1:... that the mystery of how Marie Empress (pictured) disappeared from a Cunard liner was never solved?Source: mystery of stateroom No 480

• Reviewed: Beverley Anderson-Manley

Created by Penny Richards (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 16:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC).

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - The helper script I installed flags history.com as "generally unreliable". I am not sure if that disqualifies it, because the specific news used here seems to be reliable to me. So maybe not an issue, but I want to double-check.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - I think the original hook is malformed somehow. What is it supposed to say? The ALT is fine.

Ans. Did You Know, or does anyone know, what happened to UK actress Marie Empress (pictured) last seen on a Cunard liner bound for New York.

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I am also not happy with the image caption. It reads a bit sensational; I'd prefer it more neutral, like the caption in the article. (Please note that I'm not an experienced editor – this is my 2nd review – so please tell me if I could do something better.) --LordPeterII (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for review. Answer above to your question. I changed the image caption. If you can suggest a better one then just change it. Victuallers (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Victuallers: After some consideration, sourcing is fine. The script (this one: User:Headbomb/unreliable) only tagged history.com, but it can be acceptable if quality is fine, as is the case here imo.

And ah, now I get it! I'm so used to reading "that" in the hook that I thought it was broken. Still not sure if the original hook would fulfil the standards for a DYK, so I'd like to ping a veteran like maybe @Cwmhiraeth for their opinion – would you accept the original hook?

If not, I will approve ALT1. Oh, and I changed the caption to what I deem accurate. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: I don't know the answer to your question, but I suggest you just give both hooks a tick, as there will be other editors considering the same point before this gets to the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Okay thanks! I just didn't want to make an obvious mistake. I'll trust your judgement and that of our DYK queue admins. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(Eh forgot to tick my approval.) --LordPeterII (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Concerning History.com, the note from RSN is "Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories." I see no reason why this article would allow it as a source, given this is particular the areas where History.com is known to be inaccurate/sensionalist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Okay, thanks for the explanation. I wouldn't really have noticed without your script (which is awesome!), and was unsure what to do when it got flagged. But I read most of the article and it sounded reasonably reliable to me, mostly because a lot of its information is repeated in the newspaper used to source the hook. The tone is ofc not as we like it on Wikipedia, but it didn't sound like it was pushing any more conspiracy or stuff than the mystery that it already is. @Victuallers: Do you, by any chance, have an alternative source for the parts referenced to history.com? That would be best, but since it's a relatively obscure subject I am doubtful.

Again, I really am no expert editor, but I am also not keen to block this DYK categorically. If any of the admins see this while preparing the queue, feel free to return this if you agree about the sourcing issue. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: Thanks for sticking with it - actually pretty easy to find alt sources. I have replaced History.com with "The Times" and "The Gazette" which are touchstones of reliability and the article is substantially unchanged. You are doing a cracking job. (I've been creating DYKs for 14 years and its a good place to contribute). The delay has worked out well as it was written for Women in Red by Penny Richards and the project has a Marie/Mary/May theme this month. Victuallers (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Excellent, that resolves that. Thanks! --LordPeterII (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)