A fact from USS Borie (DD-215) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 29 November 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
... that after ramming U-405, crewmen of USS Borie (DD-215)(pictured) fought the sub's crewmen with Tommy guns, rifles, pistols, shotguns and a flare pistol, and even by throwing a knife and an empty shell casing?"
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I've "adopted" this article but do not WP:OWN it of course. Please leave a note on my User Talk page with any concerns or questions. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
At this point, it almost satisfies Good Article criteria. I devoted the better part of two days to expanding this from a 660-word stub to over 3300 words. When I started, it didn't even have one inline citation of a source; now it has over 20 (some added by reviewing admin Harrias, for whom many thanks are in order). Most of this was in response to critique from the DYK admins. I reviewed the DYK criteria, and after the first day it satisfied the "written" DYK criteria regarding inline citations. I've since learned there are more stringent "unwritten" criteria.
I respectfully suggest that we should either revise the written criteria to include these unwritten standards, or have a brief discussion with DYK admins so that they will enforce only the more lenient criteria currently written. For what it's worth, I prefer the latter course of action. I perceive DYK as an initial threshold step in the development of a new (or substantially, 5x expanded) article.
There's plenty of time in the lifespan of the new article to bring its inline citations up to Good Article standards, but the initial five-day window limits opportunities to do that, particularly with a four-day holiday weekend starting tomorrow, and when starting with a 660-word stub that had to be expanded 5x. Adding more inline citations could have been done in the weeks or months ahead. But the reviewing admin conceded initially that the article was well-written and had a very interesting hook that was supported by source citation. I hope that all will accept this criticism in the constructive and collegial manner it's intended. Skoal, and have a very Happy Thanksgiving. I'm off to Grandma's. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Until there's one cite for every paragraph and controversial statement, this article will not make it to B-class, much less GA. See the article in the Milhist Academy on when to cite for guidance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)