- 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: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic
Created and nominated by Prioryman (talk) at 21:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- length and newness check out. Has QPQ. Article is completely supported by inline sources. All images have copyright tags. (Most are public domain.) Article reads as neutral enough to me. Online source shows no cause for plagiarism concern. Hook is properly formatted, neutral and interesting enough. (Personally, I think this fact is pretty well known so some less known fact might be better but okay with it.)
- Print sources support text and are free of plagiarism.
- Hook text says "could only carry a third of the Titanic's maximum number of passengers and crew" and article says "it would have required 63 to take Titanic's entire complement). He later reduced the figure to 32 and in March 1910 the decision was taken to reduce the number again to 16". Assuming this is the text the hook is referring to, my math works out 16/63=25%. On the other hand, "She only had enough lifeboats to take about a third of the ship's total capacity. Had every lifeboat been filled, they could only have evacuated about 53 per cent of those actually on board on the night of her sinking." both of these facts are cited. some mild inconsistency in this regard... but the explicit fact is explicit enough and supported by inline citations. It might be an issue but I think I can live with this not being intentionally deceptive. --LauraHale (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Good to go if the person moving to prep area is okay with the text issues mentioned. --LauraHale (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to suggest an alternative hook given the concerns expressed above - plus it might be more interesting anyway. Prioryman (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the occupants of the lifeboats of the RMS Titanic included a musical toy pig, two mysterious orphans and a Pekingese dog called Sun Yat Sen?
- ...as well as hundreds of survivors. It seems a bit insensitive to not mention them as well. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not really - everyone knows that the survivors were in the lifeboats. An ideal hook will present an interesting but little-known fact about the topic, which I'd say this manages to do. I've tweaked the wording a little though. Prioryman (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Survivors mentioned in terms of orphans. --LauraHale (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1 supported by sources, is neutral and interesting enough for me. The hook appears to be properly formatted. I am okay with it but can understand Nick-D's concerns. Thus, again, up to the person moving it the prep area to decide if a better hook mentioning survivors should be required. --LauraHale (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- The tweaked hook (eg, the addition of 'the occupants of the') looks good to me. This is an excellent article by the way. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)