Jump to content

Talk:Tom Dorrien-Smith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 SL93 (talk21:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by HenryTemplo (talk). Self-nominated at 06:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - not at the sentence end
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hi HenryTemplo. I have one question: This Nationa Portrait Gallery source does not seem to me to support all the info that it is being cited for. Maybe it is my browers having hiccups again, but all I can find on that page is Thomas Mervyn Smith-Dorrien-Smith (1913-1973), Lieutenant-Commander; Justice of the Peace; son of Arthur Algernon Smith-Dorrien-Smith. Basic info that's certainly accurate, but where does it e.g. say anything about his siblings? If you need more sources about him, there are a few more around (mostly passing mentions, but still): [1], [2] [3].

For this to be approved, you also need to repeat the citation about the Bismarck directly at the end of the sentence; it can't be only at the paragraph end. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In answer to your question, I'm only using the NPG source to provide an online source for some basic information about Tom Dorrien-Smith, and I'm using it in conjunction with the far more comprehensive but offline Scillonian Magazine, which provides the information you were mentioning (Hope that makes sense!). I've also placed another inline citation for the bit about the Bismarck at the end of the sentence. Thanks for providing the other sources as well! :) HenryTemplo (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. The issue is that currently, the citations for it are placed in a way that suggests they support all of the preceding information, when in fact they only support some. There's no need for that, and it could be interpreted as breaking text-source integrity. Offline sources are 100% okay, because we have WP:AGF. Especially since this is not some hotly debated topic, where an online source could help prevent some discussion. So, maybe better remove it, or use it only for the facts that it actually supports (which is very little, maybe his name in the infobox?). You also don't seem to have duplicated the Bismarck citation yet, maybe that edit got lost? But eh, no pressure, take your time mate :) –LordPeterII (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]