Template:Did you know nominations/Slough Fort

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 Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Slough Fort

(

)

~~... that Slough Fort in Kent was "probably the smallest" of around 70 forts constructed on the English coast in the 1860s in response to fears of a possible French invasion?~~

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Corbett (Shaker doctor)

5x expanded by Prioryman (talk). Self-nominated at 13:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC).

This all checks out, and the hook is good. My one query is whether we need to attribute the claim to Historic England in the article and the hook? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just added an extra sentence which should resolve this. Prioryman (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I might not have made myself clear. I'm suggesting that we might need to attribute the claim, for example by saying: "...was, according to Historic England, probably...". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we could, but I'm not sure as a matter of good writing that it's necessary. After all, isn't everything in the article attributable to the cited sources? I would think that as long as everything in the article and hook is reliably sourced and properly cited (and it is) then we should be OK. Prioryman (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, perhaps it's over the top. I'm just thinking about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, because the claim that it is "probably the smallest" might be considered an opinion rather than a fact. Maybe I'm over-thinking things though. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
~~Actually, reading WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV again, I don't think this applies here. This is good to go. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)~~

@Prioryman: I'm somewhat concerned about running a hook on the main page with something that's probably factual. Additionally, the source states it is probably "one of the smallest", not just the smallest, of the forts. Would you be opposed to just removing the reference to size from the hook and running it like that? Such as:

ALT1: ... that Slough Fort in Kent was one of around 70 forts constructed on the English coast in the 1860s in response to fears of a possible French invasion?

I think this retains what makes this hook interesting (the fears of a French invasion). ~ Rob^Talk 08:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's actually something that is true of all of the Palmerston forts, not just Slough Fort, but I'm OK with using your suggestion for this hook. Prioryman (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added quotes to the origonal hook which I think addresses Rob's issue. Alt1 is OK too. Based on the rest of the checking above then this OK. Thanks Prioryman and and Rob Victuallers (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm re-striking the main hook, as we absolutely should not run a fact of something that's "probably" true, especially when the source says "one of the smallest" rather than the smallest. While quoting the uncertain source at least removes it from Wikipedia's voice, it still leaves us with something on the main page that we do not know is factual. ~ Rob^Talk 09:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)