Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Kweilin Incident

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Kweilin Incident

[edit]
(
)

Created by Green Cardamom (talk). Self nominated at 16:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC).

  • New and long enough. No QPQ required. Sourced, nice hook. All good! ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 21:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've added a pipe as the name of the aircraft was just Kweilin. -Zanhe (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'm always astounded by the great hooks that are missed...
ALT1 ... that the first civilian aircraft to be shot down, the Kweilin, was raised from a river bottom, rebuilt, and shot down again two years later?
EEng (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly support this nomination. It's amazing that not only this was the first one, but it got shot down twice! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This review needs additional discussion. The original review does not mention a check for copyvio/close paraphrasing, or other details, in accordance with DYK review instructions Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYKReviewing guide. This was initially promoted with ALT1, which did not indicate if it was supported by prose and citations in the article and has been questioned at WT:DYK.— Maile (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that the Kweilin was the first civilian airliner in history to be shot down by hostile aircraft?
This is sourced. The source says in relation to the incident (direct quote): "No civilian airliner in history had ever been shot down by hostile air action." (pg. 176, China's Wings, Epub edition). If there is trouble with the meaning of "shot down" .. take it up with the source which uses that very phrase to describe this incident. Shot down is a common phrase that encompass many possibilities it doesn't need mean a literal destruction in the air (and from a literal POV one could argue it was brought down by shooting). -- GreenC 22:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This source (Miami Herald, October 16, 1979) says the pilot, Woods, was "The first to be shot down by the Japanese during [the Sino-Japanese War]". It confirms the phrase "shot down" is how this incident is viewed. The source doesn't mention first civilian airliner in history, that observation came later in the China's Wings source (and possibly elsewhere) mentioned above. -- GreenC 13:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
This source (Flying Magazine July 1941) "Japanese pursuit planes shot down a DC-2 near Canton with the loss of all but the pilot and radio operator". Confirms use of phrase "shot down" for this incident. It then goes on to explain the specifics of what happened. -- GreenC 13:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
This source (Wings for an Embattled China pg. 180+) uses the phrase "shot down" a number of time for the incident. -- GreenC 13:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we salvage the second shoot-down aspect, as in ALT1? It would be a shame to lose it, doncha think? EEng (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I prefer shorter hooks as I think more people read them when scanning the page, and it's unique enough without the longer story, which is rewarding to discover anyway. -- GreenC 15:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Personally, I'd be much less likely to click on a guy struck by lightning, than on someone struck by lightning, resuscitated, and then struck by lightning again. EEng (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't think this DYK will get off the ground if there is any hint of controversy so do whatever you want. -- GreenC 16:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was encouraging you to keep both aspects, but you know the sources well so I leave it up you to decide. EEng (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
As the person who commented about this back at T:TDYK, I just want to say I'd encourage you to keep both incidents if at all possible. I know it's not as clean as "shot down twice", but there's got to be a way. I don't see there being any controversy about there being two incidents, and if it were just the first shootdown I wouldn't have even commented... that's not all that big a deal for me at least. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
ALT3 ... that the first civilian airliner in history to be shot down by hostile aircraft, the Kweilin, was raised from a river bottom, rebuilt, and destroyed by enemy aircraft again two years later?
Long and detailed but has to be to get the accuracy correct (what's the character limit?). I still prefer ALT2 for simplicity. -- GreenC 05:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that all of this is in history, and the second shootdown wasn't a "first" so it doesn't need so much detail:
ALT3A ... that the first civilian airliner to be shot down by hostile aircraft, the Kweilin, was raised from a river bottom, rebuilt, and shot down again two years later?
  • Nonetheless, I think the nominator's/creator's preferences should be deferred to, so if GC prefers ALT2 I think we should go with that.
EEng (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I really would prefer ALT2. (there are factual and clarity problems with ALT3A but don't want to make an issue over things). Thanks. -- GreenC 18:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought 3A followed logically from 3 so I must be missing something. But I think at this point it's moot. I hope Mendaliv and others will go along with my striking all but the ALT2 GC prefers. Things have gotten confused enough that I think we should have a fresh review now just focused on ALT2, and I'm pinging Belle, one of our most intrepid reviewers, to do that. EEng (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a shame dropping the idea of a hook mentioning both incidents, which in my view is really interesting, but I can go along with it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost ready, but DYK rules state there must a citation for the the hook fact to directly follow the statement in the article and since I am only a robotic facsimile of a human and hence incapable of independent thought, I must require compliance. Com-pli-ance! COM-PLII-AANCE!! BZZT (actually I wouldn't normally bother, but as it has been pulled from prep once, let's not risk it again) Belle (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear robot @Belle: Compliance not a problem. There is a citation in the lead section, second sentence, but I also added a cite in the article sub-section, which is the better place for it anyway. (I guess fields of rice patties doesn't comply though). -- GreenC 14:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
They make for a rather dull burger (but my robotic taste buds can only distinguish between harmful and non-harmful so they'd be fine for me) Belle (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Most sources offline so AGF. Long enough, new enough, neutral. No QPQ required apparently. Ready to go with ALT2 by general consensus. Pass. Pass! PASS!! BZZT Belle (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Kweilin_Incident&oldid=1017042904"