Template:Did you know nominations/Fish kick
- 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 SL93 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Fish kick
- ... that the fish kick may be the fastest way for humans to swim?
- Comment: IOU QPQ
5x expanded by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC).
Review
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
- The hook has issues. There are sources which seem to support it and it's interesting. But there's a couple of points to resolve. The first is the word "may" which seems to be a cop-out. Is it the fastest or isn't it? DYK hooks are supposed to state "established facts that are unlikely to change". The second point is that there seems to be an unstated assumption – that we're talking about competition swimming in a pool with specific rules which forbid underwater swimming. But what about sub-aqua or snorkelling, for example, where swimmers use equipment like flippers? Or deep diving, where the swimmers are going vertically rather than horizontally? They will go faster, won't they?
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
It's a topic that would really benefit from a diagram or photo so it's a shame we don't have one yet. I've started looking. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Andrew. I'll try to respond in more depth shortly, but I don't see why 'may' in a hook is necessarily a problem-- on a search, it has appeared in a not insubstantial number of hooks before. I wish there was a wealth of research that says it definitely is or isn't, but there doesn't seem to be a clear answer-- The only source that says it definitely is is Slate, which isn't the best source for claims like this-- Public Radio International opts for "some experts" saying it is. The hook could be rephrased to "is sometimes considered" or "has been cited as" or something similar, but I'm not convinced that's better.As you note there are a lot of variables but I don't think it's misleading to just say "for humans to swim"— I'd imagine the reader will assume that we are not talking about assisted (i.e. flippers) or modified (i.e. floating to the surface) swimming, just like (presumably) nobody would think the fastest way to run is biking. I, of course, may be completely wrong on this. Let me know what you think and I'll try to conduct a qpq shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- QPQ'd Template:Did you know nominations/KWSN Eddie891 Talk Work 17:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, Happy to discuss this, but I'd need to hear your response first Eddie891 Talk Work 01:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the QPQ – I've updated the checklist. As for the hook, I hear what you say but still don't agree and so am not willing to pass this. To make progress, an ALT or another reviewer seems needed. Please feel free to relist as I have a DYK of my own which needs attention... Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Trying a possible ALT. How about ALT1... although some sources have cited the fish kick as potentially the fastest way for humans to swim, it has not been widely used in competitive swimming? I've tried to make it clear that the claim is only mentioned by some sources and is not a sure thing, though I don't know if that's enough to make it work. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
