This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic
A fact from Robert Anstruther Goodsir appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 August 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Robert Goodsir, searching for his brother Harry, lost with the Franklin expedition in the Arctic, found the graves of three expedition members?
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.
... that Robert Goodsir, searching for his brother Harry, lost with the Franklin expedition in the Arctic, found the bodies of three expedition members? Source: "...he made the discovery on Beechey Island of the graves of three members of the Franklin Expedition,,," source Freebairn, Mitchell
ALT1:... that Robert Goodsir travelled twice to the Arctic searching for his brother Harry, lost with the Franklin expedition? Source: "He made two voyages to the Arctic in search of his brother Harry Goodsir". Source:Freebairn, Mitchell
Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, and on an interesting topic. Hooks are both cited and interested. No apparent copyvio or plagiarism issues. I'm suggesting two alts which combine both hooks into one. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1b:... that Robert Goodsir travelled to the Arctic twice to search for his brother Harry who was lost with the Franklin expedition, but found only three of Harry's dead crewmates? Source: see above
@Iainmacintyre and BuySomeApples: Hate to be a rule stickler, but I believe that when you suggest a substantially new hook (even the combination of two existing ones) you need a new person (and not the nominator) to formally approve it. I'll give it a review: I can't actually see the quote above, "He made two voyages to the Arctic in search of his brother Harry Goodsir", in either of the given sources, but Freebairn does mention the two expeditions that Goodsir made. I'm not seeing why Freebairn's blog is reliable though—what makes her an expert? Otherwise, I think we can run ALT1b (bit tighter than ALT1c). — Bilorv (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: I was not aware that was in the rules, I was going off of the How to review a nomination guide and forgot that the longer reviewing guide actually does say that. I guess it does make sense that reviewers can't approve alts they suggest (although having to wait for extra reviews for changed hooks is gonna be time consuming!). I do agree that Freebairn might not be an authority even those she's quoted by the article. What do you and @Iainmacintyre: think of these sources [1], [2], [3]? The Archives of Natural History article seems reliable to me, but I'll hand this nomination off to you now as the reviewer. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK this is embarrassing. I mixed up the Courier article linked in the nom with a different Courier article I read after falling down a reading rabbit-hole. This is the one that says Robert's pseudonym was "An Arctic Man of Two Voyages". BuySomeApples (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I'm confused as to why you promoted this—this is still a conversation in progress. I've undone the promotion and let's drop one of these to be crystal clear: . I'm happy with the hook's correctness now, but I think we need to remove the Freebairn sources from the article and maybe add BuySomeApples's sources above. I see the nominator hasn't been hugely active recently but we can wait a few days to see if they weigh in. — Bilorv (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the promoted hook was based on the originals that seemed approved, so while I saw the discussion I felt that choosing part of the nom not under discussion wouldn't be an issue. The sourcing in the article for the hook seemed appropriate, I assumed you'd be happy to fix non-hook article issues at a different talk. But it's fair to want continue your discussion here. Kingsif (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples:@Bilorv:@Kingsif: I think it is fair to say that the facts as set out in my original hook and ALT! are not in dispute and nor are the facts in ALT1b and ALT1c. As I understand it the concern is about the 2 supporting sources. I choose Freebairn and Mitchell simply because they are the most recent. Freebairn is, incidentally the leading contemporary authority on Robert Goodsir and while I can't prove that, there are members of the Goodsir research community who would readily support that assertion. I am very happy to change the sources supporting the hook to [4], [5], [6]. Do I need to renominate these hooks or can the original nominations be re-reviewd and promoted?Papamac (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, both. I'll be happy to approve this if the sources are changed in the article to the three new ones. — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples:@Bilorv:@Kingsif: Thanks for the discussion. To be clear, these are not new sources but are already in the article. I have entered my original hooks supported by these sources as ALT3 and ALT4
ALT3:... that Robert Goodsir travelled twice to the Arctic searching for his brother Harry, lost with the Franklin expedition? Source: "He made two voyages to the Arctic in search of his brother Harry Goodsir". Sources:[7], [8]
@Iainmacintyre: there's no need to repeat hooks already given earlier. Are you not happy going with ALT1b—I thought that was the hook we had decided on? I can now see the first source in the article (I was searching for the URL but a different one is given) but not the Cambridge or Scotsman ones, still. What am I missing? — Bilorv (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Bilorv:. My problem with ALT1b is the wording 'but found only' which implies that the finding of the bodies was the only discovery made by the two expeditions involving Goodsir. They also found objects from and remnants of the Franklin expedition; and no, you didn't miss these citations, which I've now included. Mea culpa. Papamac (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is new enough, long enough, and on an interesting topic. Hooks are both cited and interested. No apparent copyvio or plagiarism issues. I'm suggesting two alts which combine both hooks into one. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
. I'm happy with the hook's correctness now, but I think we need to remove the Freebairn sources from the article and maybe add BuySomeApples's sources above. I see the nominator hasn't been hugely active recently but we can wait a few days to see if they weigh in. — Bilorv (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
ALT0 and ALT1 then. — Bilorv (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)