Template:Did you know nominations/Turtling (sailing)

The following discussion 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Both Fram and Harrias have objected to the article on WP:NOT grounds (how-to, prescriptive, etc.); article has not been modified to address these very real concerns.

Turtling (sailing)

(

)

... that turtling (pictured) is when a boat is fully inverted with the mast pointing down to the seabed and the hull skyward, not a turtle romance?

5x expanded by 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by Doug Coldwell (talk) at 15:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC).

Comment Thank you for the nomination, Doug. There are three pictures. Should one of them be included? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
All 3 look good to me, representing what the article is about. A picture is worth a thousand words - so by default you have 3,000 words + over 6,000 characters of prose. Good article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Reviewed Silver City Daily Press.7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The following has been checked in this review by Maile

QPQ done by 7&6=thirteen
Article created by Owenturnbull on June 11, 2006
Before 5X expansion, 540 characters of readable prose
5X expansion began November 15, 2013 and currently has 7,393 characters of readable prose
Copyvio check shows no issues
Additional spot check with Dup detector shows no issues
Disambig links in DYK toolbox shows no issues
External links in DYK toolbox shows no issues
Every paragraph sourced
Hook is 131 characters and sourced by Endnotes 1 and 2
Image is the work of the U.S. Navy and licensed on Commons as "Public Domain"
NPOV, well sourced, well-written, detailed and informative. Good job.

Good 2 go. — Maile (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment for Promoting Editor - Can the DYK be first in the queue with the picture. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This was promoted by Rcsprinter123, but removed from Prep 3 by Fram, as explained at WT:DYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandarax, I should have done this but forgot. Fram (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The only duplication of the capsizing article is material I put into it after it was put in the turtling article. The "How to" is incidental and integral to the rest of the content. Definition (it's more than just a capsize, it is a capsize on steroids and one that has gone badly), prevention and cure are integral in the sources. This article went from 1,000 bytes to 30,000, so general similarity of subject matter has nothing to do with DYK. All turtlings involve a capsize, but all capsizes do not need to turn into a turtle (and if they do it can be bad). They share a cusp, some causes and an event horizon. But they are different. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Per this discussion, Fram said he no longer has an objection to putting it back in the prep area. This is once again Good 2 Go as a hook. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fram might be okay with it, but I certainly am not. The general feel of the article is of a "how to" guide, even if that was not the intention. Language such as "drills are (and should be) part.." is both instructional and editorial, both of which are to be avoided according to the MOS. The first paragraph in the body of the article is: "Prevention is the first priority." There is no context or explanation of this given: the reader has to assume that it is talking about turtling. The use of inverted commas around "if" and "when" is unnecessary, and the use of italics is probably also unwarranted. The article should not use a phrase such as "See Limit of Positive Stability." mid paragraph, which further adds to the "manual" feel of the article. To be blunt, the article is poorly written, in a style which completely disregards Wikipedia's manual of style, and is probably a content fork of Capsize. Harrias ^talk 15:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)