Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert C. Pringle (tug)

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 Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Robert C. Pringle (tug)

(
)
Robert C. Pringle as Chequamegon
Robert C. Pringle as Chequamegon
  • Reviewed: Christuskirche, Walsdorf
  • Comment: Work in progress. Although the page doesn't explicitly state the ship was sunk by a piece of driftwood, it is given as the most likely reason.

Created by GreatLakesShips (talk). Self-nominated at 10:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I need to ask someone more au fait with picture requirements to be sure we're not violating copyright by using the postcard pic. MeegsC (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Article was created late on 5 January and nominated early on 13 January according to my computer which is technically eight days (according to my possibly faulty math), but I'm not inclined to reject a hook for being a couple of hours late. Article is just barely long enough (1576 B of prose), reasonably well referenced and written. No indication of copyvio per Earwigs. Two formatting things: Is there a reason why the article is not at Robert C. Pringle? And is it possible to italicize the title?
    for the hook facts, ALT0 should say 'probably sunk' if that's the case. The cited source says the tug struck an obstruction (some reports specified floating driftwood) and filled rapidly is that the same thing as 'probably'? I'm not seeing that there's confusion, the source seems to definitively say that it was sunk. Here's a contemporary newspaper report backing that up. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. I'm not seeing "pristine" in the source for ALT1-- I don't think "remarkably intact" is the same thing.
    Image is suitably licensed (published in 1909) and views fine at reduced size. Waiting on qpq. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I see I edit conflicted on the review-- will leave my comments up but not use it as a QPQ and will defer to MeegsC for final approval. Sorry about that Eddie891 Talk Work 13:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: and @Eddie891: Title italicized. The article is called Robert C. Pringle (tug) and not simply Robert C. Pringle because it is named after the owner, and although he doesn't have an article, I believe it is important to distinguish between a person and a ship. There is no confusion on whether the ship sank, the confusion is about what the ship struck. Although, the source states that multiple reports stated it was driftwood, which seems like the most likely scenario. Hook and article changed from "pristine" to "remarkably intact".GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
GreatLakesShips thanks for updating; I'd recommend that you remove the "submerged" from your quotation above as the source only says "obstruction". I think I confused things when I said "article" in my comment above. I meant the Wikipedia article. I'd recommend you remove "submerged" from that article too, unless you have another source that you could use for that fact — particularly since some reports say floating driftwood! ;) By the way, just FYI, none of the sfn footnote links to the sources are working. MeegsC (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: Footnotes no longer an issue. Should I replace "submerged" with "floating", or should I get rid of it completely? GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
GreatLakesShips, this is fine — though it would also be fine if you wanted to add "(possibly floating driftwood)", since the source says that. Just waiting on a QPQ now.
@MeegsC: QPQ done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This one's ready to go then! MeegsC (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article isn't remotely ready as it consists only of a lead section and a design and construction section; the rest consists only of unexpanded headers, which is a clear violation of supplementary rule D7. The article must be completed to a reasonable standard before it can be featured. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Is there a deadline for me to sufficiently expand the article? GreatLakesShips (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
GreatLakesShips, I don't think we've ever set a deadline because most people don't nominate their articles until they are complete. But I think you should finish it in a reasonable amount of time after you've nominated it. Could you get it done within the next couple of weeks? Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I think so. I really depends on how much time I have. GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Gatoclass; this is not what the article looked like when I reviewed it! MeegsC (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I see that MeegsC, thanks for the clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC:@Gatoclass: Article completed. GreatLakesShips (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Is the article good to go? 22:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Gatoclass because I don't think the last one from GreatLakesShips went through. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes I did get the ping SL93, but didn't comment because it's MeegsC's review. The article certainly looks fine to me now, but Meegs is the one who should be completing the review. Gatoclass (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
MeegsC Please return to the review. SL93 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
SL93 – sorry, I'm pretty new at this "revisiting" stuff. When I passed the article, it was fine. I didn't realize I was responsible for keeping tabs on it for the rest of its existence! In my expanded examination, here's what I found:
  • Close paraphrasing in at least one area: Our article No expense was spared in fitting her out.[10] Her cabins contained oak woodwork, and upholstered furniture throughout. Source material: no expense was spared in fitting her out. Her cabins were finished with oak woodwork and upholstered furniture was placed throughout.
  • Interestingly there's also a discrepancy: Our article Chequamegon had two decks, a single mast, and a round stern. Source material: The vessel was described as a screw steamer built of wood with two decks, no masts, a plain head, and rounded stern.
  • Some copyediting needed on the sentence Scheduled to be moved to Milwaukee in 1904, she made her final trip was made on May 21, 1904, between Ashland and Washburn; she arrived in Milwaukee the day after her final trip.
I guess I'd need to see these issues sorted before passing. MeegsC (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: Sorry about that. The issues are all fixed now. GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
GreatLakesShips, I found one more thing (though I'll approve it now anyway): "She she was issued a temporary enrollment on June 13, 1903..."
SL93, this is again good to go. Hopefully for the last time! ;) MeegsC (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

MeegsC can you check this modified hook? Joofjoof (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Joofjoof: Yes, this is fine. MeegsC (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, restoring tick. Joofjoof (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Robert_C._Pringle_(tug)&oldid=1006348984"