Template:Did you know nominations/John Deane (sailor)
- 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) 16:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
John Deane (sailor)
- ... that John Deane and his crew of the Nottingham Galley cannibalised in desperation the ship's deceased carpenter when the ship wrecked on Boon Island in 1710?
- ALT1:...
that the British sailor and diplomat John Deane, was accused of accepting a considerable bribe in exchange for the surrender of the two Swedish vessels whilst captaining a Russian Navy frigate, with his initial sentence reduced by Peter the Great and further exonerated by Fyodor Apraksin?
- ALT1:...
Created by D.j.atherton (talk). Self-nominated at 11:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC).
The article meets DYK requirements, meets sourcing requirements, the hook fact is interesting and is mentioned inline and verified. Nominator has no prior DYK credits so no QPQ is required. Earwigs detects some close paraphrasing with this source, which will need to be addressed before this can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing Narutolovehinata5 - can you possibly confirm whether the close paraphrasing is an issue with the hook fact or the article? I am aware there was an issue with the article that has since been resolved with the help of another user. Thanks for your help! D.J.A (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @D.j.atherton: It was with the article. There were some sentences that appear to have been missed from the rewrite. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: thanks for the clarification! It has hopefully been cleaned up as necessary - earwig report is now at 5%. Hopefully that's alright? Thanks, D.J.A (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I think this should be good to go now. Earwigs still has a score of 23% for another source, but the common statements are so short that I think WP:LIMITED applies. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I note that there are some unsourced paragraphs, some closing sentences to paragraphs that are uncited, and that ALT1 is far too long for a hook? Spokoyni (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oof, thanks for pointing that out Spokoyni, somehow missed those unsourced paragraphs. But I saw in a recent DYK nomination that the rule only requires at least one reference per paragraph and these can be anywhere in the paragraph (even at the start), though I'd guess this is aside from BLPs or other controversial topics such as politics and medicine. @D.j.atherton: Can you please try lookig for references for the paragraphs without citations? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- No problem, I've missed some obvious things in reviews and wondered how I managed to do so. Easily done. Wikipedia:Inline citation (particularly Wikipedia:CITEDENSE) and Wikipedia:When to cite are pretty generally worded guidelines, probably the most relevant bit is "Everything in [a] paragraph [that] deals with the same, single subject from the same source ... can ... be supported by a single inline citation. The inline citation could be placed at any sensible location, but the end of the paragraph is the most common choice." The only concern with not putting it at the end of a paragraph is I think that someone might come along and wonder if everything that follows after the cite in a paragraph is from a different source, or has no source at all. But it looks like there's no hard rule in wiki generally, and that the DYK rules only state that the hook fact must be cited in the sentence it appears in, and the "rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph". Spokoyni (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi both, Spokoyni and Narutolovehinata5, I have made clearer the sourcing so there shouldn't be any paragraphs left un-sourced. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help this! Thanks both of you! D.J.A (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi D.J.A, good work! At the moment the first paragraph of "Early life" and the second paragraph of "Personal life and retirement" still don't seem to have any cites. There's also a few paragraphs that have no cites at the end. As discussed above, that isn't necessarily a problem, though some users might tag these as uncited. It's up to you if you want to leave them as they are. Spokoyni (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Spokoyni, I'd overlooked those two paragraphs obviously! I see what you mean about the few paragraphs without a citation at the end but I think, unless anyone does flag it as an issue, the current amount are pretty concise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.j.atherton (talk • contribs) 10:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- General wikipedia guidelines are pretty relaxed (see above), so if you'd prefer to keep it as it is, that I don't think that should stand in the way of promotion. Of course Narutolovehinata5 is the reviewer here, I'm just chiming in with some thoughts. I'd only say you might have to be prepared to deal with that at some point, possibly while it is on the main page, as articles tend to get a lot of external scrutiny. Spokoyni (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- The rules do require at least one reference per paragraph for DYK articles, so this can't be promoted until that's addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- General wikipedia guidelines are pretty relaxed (see above), so if you'd prefer to keep it as it is, that I don't think that should stand in the way of promotion. Of course Narutolovehinata5 is the reviewer here, I'm just chiming in with some thoughts. I'd only say you might have to be prepared to deal with that at some point, possibly while it is on the main page, as articles tend to get a lot of external scrutiny. Spokoyni (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Spokoyni, I'd overlooked those two paragraphs obviously! I see what you mean about the few paragraphs without a citation at the end but I think, unless anyone does flag it as an issue, the current amount are pretty concise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.j.atherton (talk • contribs) 10:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi D.J.A, good work! At the moment the first paragraph of "Early life" and the second paragraph of "Personal life and retirement" still don't seem to have any cites. There's also a few paragraphs that have no cites at the end. As discussed above, that isn't necessarily a problem, though some users might tag these as uncited. It's up to you if you want to leave them as they are. Spokoyni (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi both, Spokoyni and Narutolovehinata5, I have made clearer the sourcing so there shouldn't be any paragraphs left un-sourced. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help this! Thanks both of you! D.J.A (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- No problem, I've missed some obvious things in reviews and wondered how I managed to do so. Easily done. Wikipedia:Inline citation (particularly Wikipedia:CITEDENSE) and Wikipedia:When to cite are pretty generally worded guidelines, probably the most relevant bit is "Everything in [a] paragraph [that] deals with the same, single subject from the same source ... can ... be supported by a single inline citation. The inline citation could be placed at any sensible location, but the end of the paragraph is the most common choice." The only concern with not putting it at the end of a paragraph is I think that someone might come along and wonder if everything that follows after the cite in a paragraph is from a different source, or has no source at all. But it looks like there's no hard rule in wiki generally, and that the DYK rules only state that the hook fact must be cited in the sentence it appears in, and the "rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph". Spokoyni (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oof, thanks for pointing that out Spokoyni, somehow missed those unsourced paragraphs. But I saw in a recent DYK nomination that the rule only requires at least one reference per paragraph and these can be anywhere in the paragraph (even at the start), though I'd guess this is aside from BLPs or other controversial topics such as politics and medicine. @D.j.atherton: Can you please try lookig for references for the paragraphs without citations? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: thanks for the clarification! It has hopefully been cleaned up as necessary - earwig report is now at 5%. Hopefully that's alright? Thanks, D.J.A (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @D.j.atherton: It was with the article. There were some sentences that appear to have been missed from the rewrite. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. While each paragraph now has a citation, some end sentences still don't have a citation at the end. I'm willing to overlook this and will still give this the tick as long as Spokoyni is satisfied with the new edits, I'm just worried that other editors may not feel the same way. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly no objections here, and of course this is first and foremost your review Narutolovehinata5. If, and I suspect its very likely, the sentences are tagged - especially with the eyes it gets before and during the main page, that will be something the nominator can take up with who tags it. Spokoyni (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. With that in mind, I think this is good to go now. If there are still things that need to be fixed, they probably aren't too major to keep it from promotion. I would suggest changing one mention of "passed away" to "died" per WP:EUPHEMISM, though this is only a minor issue. I've struck ALT1 for being too long, and ALT0 is probably the more eye-catchy hook anyway. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I came by to promote this, and did some light editing. I noted several places where citations are required. If you quote someone, or add specific information, you need a cite. I don't know where you get your idea that
the majority of today's DYK articles do not follow this rule
. Of course they do. Yoninah (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies Yoninah, that comment wasn't meant to be rude or dismissive - only to note that the necessity of at least one citation per paragraph did not look to be reflected in all of the articles. One of today's, for example: LGBT cinema in Latin America. I'm happy to go back onto the article and amend where citations are shown - I think I've placed ones in the middle of a paragraph when they apply to the entire paragraph possibly. Thanks! D.J.A (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @D.j.atherton: thank you for pointing out that article. (I didn't promote it, and I wouldn't have promoted it with an unreferenced section.) I tagged the article. Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @D.j.atherton and Yoninah: Are there any updates to this discussion, and have the issues been resolved? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- D.j.atherton has not edited Wikipedia since the above August 27 posts on this page, and three "citation needed" templates remain on the article. I'll let Yoninah decide how to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
As I have access to Jstor, I was able to correct and add information from one of the sources. But I also found that the information cited to that source was not in the Jstor article, so I added a "citation needed" tag. There are two other paragraphs that also need citations, for which the sources appear to be offline. If the nominator is no longer available, I would close this as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I have access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry, which includes the information for which two "citation needed" tags had been added. I have added citations and made some edits to the article to better reflect the sources. Yoninah, BlueMoonset, are there other parts of the article which you think need more or better sourcing? I have access to some databases, including Jstor, Ebsco, and supposedly Gale, though it's currently not loading properly - so may be able to address any other issues, if necessary. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies, have been out of the country with no access to wiki. As far as I can see, you (Yoninah and RebeccaGreen) have both done a great job catching up where I'd left off. If there are still references to sort out, please do let me know. D.J.A (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your work, RebeccaGreen. All paragraphs cited now. Restoring tick (for offline sources) per Narutolovehinata5's review. Yoninah (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies, have been out of the country with no access to wiki. As far as I can see, you (Yoninah and RebeccaGreen) have both done a great job catching up where I'd left off. If there are still references to sort out, please do let me know. D.J.A (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
