Template:Did you know nominations/RIMS Warren Hastings
- 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 ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
All issues seemed to be addressed. Moving to prep area 1.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
RIMS Warren Hastings
[edit]
- ... that the RIMS Warren Hastings, launched on 18 April 1893, was claimed to be "practically unsinkable" because of its 33 watertight compartments?
GA promotion 2 days ago, long enough, neutral, online refs verifiable, does not appear to have close paraphrasing issues.
However, the details of the hook are not are not cited. I went through some online resources to try and find a citation with no luck. (I did clip these articles in the even you might want to use them or work them into the references in any way: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). It looks like this is a first DYK, so no QPQ is required.--Godot13 (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Godot13: Well, both facts are cited (just in separate paragraphs), but I assume that it all has to be in one line. If that's the case, I can fix that, but do all sources have to online? The source for its launch date and it being unsinkable is from a newspaper. --Biblioworm 15:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Biblioworm:-Mention of "33 watertight compartments" and "practically unsinkable" each appear twice, both times in a similar sentence. The sentence in the lead does not have any citations (okay), but the same fact in a similar sentence in the body also does not have any citations. You have two inline citations for the next sentence (about electric lights) which is not part of the hook… Sources do not have to be online, but it certainly helps for hook verification.--Godot13 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Godot13: Ah, I see what you're thinking. Those two citations at the end of the sentence about the electric lights are the citations for the entire paragraph, not just that sentence. If necessary, I might be able to email you a copy of that newspaper so that it can be verified. --Biblioworm 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Biblioworm:- If you are certain that the hook information is covered in refs #2 and #3, I would suggest you add the refs at the end of that sentence as well. It makes the citations unequivocally applicable to the hook info, which is required. Unless another reviewer says otherwise, after you make the change, I'll change the status to a check-mark, with the assumption of good faith on the hook refs.--Godot13 (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Godot13: Ah, I see what you're thinking. Those two citations at the end of the sentence about the electric lights are the citations for the entire paragraph, not just that sentence. If necessary, I might be able to email you a copy of that newspaper so that it can be verified. --Biblioworm 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Biblioworm:-Mention of "33 watertight compartments" and "practically unsinkable" each appear twice, both times in a similar sentence. The sentence in the lead does not have any citations (okay), but the same fact in a similar sentence in the body also does not have any citations. You have two inline citations for the next sentence (about electric lights) which is not part of the hook… Sources do not have to be online, but it certainly helps for hook verification.--Godot13 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Biblioworm (talk). Self nominated at 21:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC).