Template:Did you know nominations/Action of 28 February 1799

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) 05:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Action of 28 February 1799

(

)

... that both opposing frigate captains died as a result of the Action of 28 February 1799?

ALT1 . . .that when frigates Forte and HMS Sybille fought the Action of 28 February 1799 the opposing captains were both killed?

Reviewed: Archaeological Museum of Lamia

Created by Jackyd101 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC).

I intend to review this one in detail today. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the reference for the death of Cpt. Le Loup de Beaulieu and consider the author reliable; a good faith nod here for the offline reference. However, when dealing with the death of Cpt. Cooke... I think that we can do without Oxford's subscription, this one is found in his personal biography and could do just fine. In regard to the proposed hooks, I consider the first one slightly more adequate, since the second one could be misinterpreted to mean that both died in the actual exchange.

That's it for the hook itself. However, there is a matter that may be a hindrance for the nomination and it's the fact that the incomplete draft was first published in March 10 but nominated for DYK more than two months later. I lean towards

because it was systematically moved from a sandbox to the mainspace and was thus, technically, not complete yet. But the DYK veterans may have a different opinion. If we take the date that it was completed as the "creation" of the article, then it would certainly meet the other requirements. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and points about sourcing and hook taken on board. I have always understood that the date the article was moved from userspace to mainspace counts as the "creation date" of the article. It would be next to impossible to create comprehensive articles on Wikipedia otherwise (within the time frame). I have been creating articles in my userspace in this fashion since 2007 and have nominated many here, but if the house rules have changed I will of course withdraw the nomination. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, if the date is not considered a problem, I support this nomination. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Caribbean H.Q., WP:DYKSG#D8 is very clear that indeed, as Jackyd101 has said, "Seven days old" means seven days old in article space. There is something a bit odd about this article—the early history is clearly messed up—but I'm not worried about that, especially as the article also qualifies as a 5x expansion since May 24. Since it was nominated on May 27 it was done so within the required seven days of the move and of the expansion, so it's good either way. What I don't see in the review yet are comments on neutrality and that close paraphrasing has been checked, both important DYK criteria. (The basic list is above this editing window.) BlueMoonset (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly BlueMoonset, there is something off with the dates, but as mentioned I would not take them into account. The review focuses on the things that may be an issue, for example the offline referencing was checked and the language of one of the hooks was noted. There are no concerns at all in terms of neutrality, the article is written in a generally matter-of-fact-y tone and the quoted incidents are directly discussed in the prose. I guess that Cpt. Le Loup de Beaulieu's death could be emphasized more in the lead, but that is merely a matter of preference. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In that case, Caribbean H.Q., it sounds like you've completed your review. It's up to you to give it the final approval, since the article meets time and length requirements. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed... And congrats to Jack for an engaging read. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)