Template:Did you know nominations/SSK 90 helmet

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

SSK 90 helmet

(

)

[[File:|120x133px|SSK 90 helmet ]]

SSK 90 helmet

... that a World War II Luftwaffe helmet (pictured) was once thought to be the best preserved Viking helmet? Source: Strong 2002: "This was once believed to be the most complete surviving helmet from the Viking period."

Reviewed: Queens Building, Heathrow

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 10:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

@Usernameunique: I'm a bit concerned about the reliability of the two sources supporting the hook. One is from a Dutch website that contains mainly articles about coins, but it's unclear who the author is and what kind of editorial control there is. This source refers to a book by a notable archaeologist which mentions a helmet in the Museum of the City of Kiev, disputing the book's description of it as a Viking helmet and saying that it is in fact an SSK 90. The second source is from a medieval antiquities dealer and mentions the story only in passing. It also states that the helmet was used by jet fighters, which is refuted by this other source cited in the article. On the whole, I do not find that these sources by themselves are reliable enough to refute the book's statement that the helmet in Kiev is a Viking one. If there is another reliable source to support this, such as in an academic journal, then the hook would be acceptible.

That being said, the article is new enough and (just barely) long enough, and the QPQ is acceptable. It needs either a new source for the current hook, or a new hook and a correction to the article in order to pass. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

~~Also, the image is unacceptable because it is under copyright. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)~~ There is now OTRS pending for the image. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH). I get your point about those being random websites on face. The part that makes me completely believe them is the pictures. The patent design, in particular, is absolutely identical to the image published by Tweddle. If you take a look, I'm sure you'll agree that they're the same.

For whatever it's worth, I was dubious when I read about it in Tweddle; its construction is nothing like any of the Viking (or related) helmets, and if it were true, why had nobody from 1992 to 2016 repeated the claim? So I googled it and found those two websites, which provide and answer, and the research (photos and patent diagrams) to prove it. I think the research stands for itself, and doesn't need a notable name to be attached to it to be credible. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: You may be right, but WP:V and especially WP:NOR require that assertions must be based on reliable sources rather than our own reasoning. If it's true that the helmet has been misidentified, I'd expect that it's been written about in an academic journal or at least a reliable trade publication. If it hasn't, that gives me pause. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), as you've undoubtedly seen, I've asked for opinions on the reliable sources noticeboard. Hopefully I've adequately captured your perspective in the summary, but obviously please clarify it if not. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to have additional input on the matter. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), I'm bringing ALT1 and ALT2 over here so the DYK suggestions don't get separated.

ALT1: ... that one archaeological find has been identified as both a World War II Luftwaffe helmet (pictured), and a 10th century Viking helmet?

ALT2: ... that an archaeological find identified as a 10th century Viking helmet has been alleged to actually be a World War II Luftwaffe helmet (pictured)? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd go for ALT2, but I suggested it and there's not consensus as to the reliability of the sources, so I'd like to have someone else do the hook approval. Other than the hook fact, the article is ready to go. I also suggest the following hook that should be more straightforward to verify. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that the SSK 90 helmet (pictured) was withdrawn after 18 days because it was too heavy?

Thanks John P. Sadowski (NIOSH). My preference is for ALT2 as well, although ALT3 is also fine. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

:REVIEW COMPLETED - The following review was completed by Esemono

QPQ for Queens Building, Heathrow

Article has 1738 characters (307 words) of "readable prose size" and was created by Usernameunique on January 3, 2018

NPOV

ALT3 Hook is sourced to :Due to the weight of the steel plates inside the SSK 90 helmet it was eventually withdrawn from service on 26 May 1941.

Every paragraph sourced

Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector found no copyvio

GTG -- Esemono (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Per discussion regarding the reliability of the source for the hook (which I'm sure you all checked), this has been re-opened to reflect the discussion ongoing at the talkpage of Usernameunique. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)