Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander Armstrong (Royal Navy officer)

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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Armstrong (Royal Navy officer)

(

)

... that Alexander Armstrong abandoned most of his specimens upon being rescued during the McClure Arctic expedition, but retrieved petrified wood from the Paleogene period? Source: "But his collections still presumably lie in the wreck of HMS Investigator. Remarkably, he did salvage at least one specimen of Palaeogene petrified wood (from Banks Island), " [1]
- ALT1: ... that upon his rescue, Alexander Armstrong retrieved his journal against his captain's orders, and its publication contradicted the captain's claims about their chances of survival? Source: " he managed to keep his journal despite McClure’s orders to his officers that their records were to be left on board." "thereby contradicting McClure’s arrogant boast that he could have saved the men’s lives without external aid." [2]
- ALT2: ... that Alexander Armstrong spent two winters trapped at Mercy Bay, then spent an additional winter in the Arctic before returning to England? Source: "McClure finally reached Mercy Bay on the northern shore of Banks Land, where the Investigator spent the winters of 1851–52 and 1852–53 beset in ice." "After further mishap and another winter in the Arctic, the men returned to London" [3]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/David J. Brewer

5x expanded by Z1720 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC).

Taking a look... Girth Summit _(blether) 17:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll start with the good, before moving onto the problem.
- The article is long enough.
- The article is neutrally and well written, and is well referenced to reliable sources.
- Earwig is a bit grumpy (30%), but this is mostly due to the lengthy titles of the subject's books being present in the text and the sources; on closer inspection, it is free of any copyvio that I can detect.
- The hooks are properly formatted, appropriately sourced, and interesting - I personally find Alt1 to be the best, and Alt2 to be the unbest, but that's subjective - they're all fine.
- QPQ is done.
So, here's the problem. Seeking to verify the 5x expansion, I compared with this version of 11 July. The tool tells me it is 920 characters/153 words. Arithmetically, a 5x expansion would be a minimum of 4,600 characters/765 words. The current version, again according to the tool, has only 4418 characters/716 words - so, it's more like a 4.7-4.8x expansion. Z1720 - would you be able to add a sentence or two in order to meet this criterion? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Sorry about the length: I think I misread the DYK check tool I use to evaluate these things. I added a line to bring it to 5x, and I'll look for more information to add later. Please let me know if anything else is needed. Z1720 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Z1720 it's now 7611 characters, so 5x expanded by that metric. It's still only 748 words, so a few short of the mark going by that measure, but I'm not going to fret about that - good to go. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)