Template:Did you know nominations/Submarine Memorial Chapel

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) 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Submarine Memorial Chapel

(

)

Argonaut's ship's bell

... that the steeple of the Submarine Memorial Chapel in Pearl Harbor contains the ship's bell from the USS Argonaut, donated while the chapel was under construction and before she was sunk during World War II? [1]
ALT1 ... that during World War II, the crew of the USS Argonaut donated their ship's bell (pictured) to the Submarine Memorial Chapel before their submarine was sunk? [2]

Reviewed: Section 21 notice

Created/expanded by Bri (talk). Self-nominated at 23:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC).

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough: - I calculate it as only being 1,346 characters of readable prose (excluding headers etc)

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - close paraphrasing and possible copyright infringement of http://www.ssbn655.org/newsletter/1603%20Stimson%20Draft.pdf?

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - could do with a collaborating source

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Dan arndt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: re issues:

I use DYKcheck, it reports 1,746 characters. Could you please double check?
The close-paraphrasing is actually credited use of a public domain USN document, Chapel renews weekly services, which is allowed per WP:PD. The newsletter you found includes a reprint of the same document.

Can these be resolved without alteration to the article? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In response:

I use the Character Counter, which I find more accurate than DYKcheck and after removing all the headers, reference links, templates, captions etc - I still find that it falls short of the desired length.
In accordance with WP:CLOP editors should generally summarize source material in their own words or ensure the material is clearly attributed in the text.
Also almost all the material could be interpreted as being a primary source, which is why it would be preferable to have independent collaborating sources, particularly for the hook.

Let me know when you've addressed these. Dan arndt (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Bri, while DYKcheck is typically the gold standard at DYK, there's something about the way the USNAVY template's Public Domain declarations are formatted at the bottom of the article that makes DYKcheck think that they're prose when they're not—they should be considered part of the bibliography or referencing, but in any event not prose. Since those two entries come to 417 characters including spacing, your prose count is actually 1329 characters rather than 1500 or more. Best of luck in expanding the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I had to scroll down to see that. Will try to write a bit more ... have just put the February Signpost to bed, so maybe tomorrow. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Expanded the article tonight; we should be over 1900 characters now. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Full review needed now that article has been significantly expanded. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Dan arndt, would you like to continue reviewing this article? I will do the review if we don't hear back within a week. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Flibirigit, it's been more than a week; please do the review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Bri, I will do my best to help you with this review next week. I'm leaving for vacation in the morning. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Article created and nominated on the same day. It is long enough with a word count at 1973. Sourcing is adequate, and article is neutral in tone. I found no paraphrasing issues, and the one quote used is properly cited. Hook ALT1 is properly cited, and similarly mentioned inline. Photo is properly licensed, clear at a low resolution, and used in the article. QPQ requirement is met. Nomination is good to move onto the next stage. Flibirigit (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)