Template:Did you know nominations/Leschi (fireboat)

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 sst ✈ 06:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Promoted with image. ALT1 hook used because it is shorter.

Leschi (fireboat)

(

)

M/V Leschi

... that the Seattle fireboat Leschi can be used as a mobile pumping station to allow firefighters to draw seawater in the event of a disaster that destroys the city's water mains?

ALT1 ... that the fireboat Leschi can be used as a pumping station to allow firefighters to draw seawater in the event of a disaster that destroys Seattle's water mains?

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 23:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

Two problems: Hook is not found verbatim in the article. Hook should also be followed by a citation. Please adjust hook accordingly. Section under the title "Disaster operations" is not cited. When problems get fixed this DYK will be good to go as no other problems were detected. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. - I think I've corrected both issues now. LavaBaron (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, LavaBaron your edit just added a ref at the end of the paragraph but did not add the words of the hook as they appear here. You should add the hook to the article in the same words as it appears on this nomination. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Also I reverted your hook change because you are not supposed to change the original hook. You have to provide an alternate hook on another line starting with "ALT1" in bold. In addition, your new hook was over the 200 character limit. It was too long. You should provide a shorter one. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've shortened the hook to make it under 200 characters, however, I did not change it to match the text of the article verbatim as (a) it would be nonsensical as a verbatim phrase without context, and, (b) word-for-word repetition of a line from the article is not a requirement for DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Your point a) is invalid since an interesting fact from the article should be a stand-alone interesting fact which would invite someone to read the article further. Also, if the hook talks about a "pumping station" there is no reason why "pumping station" cannot appear in the article. If "pumping station" cannot appear in the article, for lack of sources or any other reason, then the description is unsupported original research and we cannot have that. Your point b is redundant given my above rationale. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Standalone fact" does not, nor has it ever equaled, "verbatim text from the article." You are applying a standard of your own invention that isn't being applied to other DYK reviews occurring at this very moment. The changes in wording between the hook and the article are to make it comprehensible as a standalone fact. A hook of "Did you know manifolds on the Leschi's deck provide ports through which hose lines can be run to provide fire engines with direct access to seawater?" - the direct text you're demanding - would make absolutely no sense and would not be a "hook." Including the preceding sentence in order to make it comprehensible, would put it over the character limit. I think you may not be familiar with the colloquial use of the word "hook" in English, which is okay, but may cause problems doing DYK reviews. LavaBaron (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the facts are quite the opposite from what you are trying to portray. Given that you have already made quite a few mistakes that I had to correct, such as altering the original DYK hook without proposing an ALT1 hook, then providing a hook with way over the 200 character limit etc. it looks as if it is you who has no experience how DYK works not me. Obviously that is your problem not mine. I tried to advise you but you came back with irrelevant comments and insinuations about my understanding of what a hook is. Here is some advice: Don't try to reverse the tables on me. Try to learn from what I told you. If you don't comply I will not pass this DYK. No amount of personal ot irrelevant comments will change that. With this I welcome another reviewer to take up this DYK because it does not appear that my review comments will be complied with any time soon. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh good Lord. LavaBaron (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the hook fact does not need to be found verbatim in the body of the article. Some condensing, rewording, and other editing is preferred to an inadequate hook or an awkward sentence wedged into the body of the text. The rules are right here (Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook) for all to read. - Dravecky (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Some condensing, rewording, and other editing is preferred to an inadequate hook or an awkward sentence wedged into the body of the text. Who said that "the hook would be inadequate or an awkward sentence should be wedged into the body of the text?" Has anyone tried to copyedit the article? Also if reliable sources describe the boat as a "mobile pumping station" why can't this simple fact be included in the article? What would be so awkward about it? If reliable sources do not use the descriptor "mobile pumping station" then perhaps another more suitable description can be found which is also supported by RS. I have read the DYK rules and hook description multiple times over the years, thank you. I am simply not convinced that the hook adequately complies with RS. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, if you or anyone else is certain that the present hook is compliant with RS, by all means please approve it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I added a mission statement which specifically refers to the boat as a "mobile pump station". This statement is supported by an RS already existing at the article. This resolves my concerns. The problem now is that since I edited the article I became involved with it and I would like someone uninvolved to approve this DYK. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well now the article reads WP:PROMOTIONAL. Not sure when we include "mission statements," but whatever, I'm not going to argue over it. We can change it back to the NPOV version after the DYK is done I guess. LavaBaron (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A mission statement is a short description of the boat's mission which includes all its functions and intended uses. The mission statement is included in Professional Mariner, a very reliable, non-promotional source. The article is about a service boat which presumably has a mission. The mission is stated matter-of-factly as: Firefighting, mobile platform for emergency medical treatment and command center, mobile pump and fuel station, and response to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) emergencies. I fail to see how you consider this simple enumeration of the vessel's duties and descriptions as promotional or failing NPOV. On the contrary, I consider the mission section which I added to significantly improve the article because it summarises its functions and intended uses while immediately after the mission section these uses are further analysed and elaborated upon. So the mission statement acts also as a brief introduction to the boat's capabilities. The mission statement also includes an additional functionality of the boat as a "mobile fuel station" which was not in the article before I added it. I am done here however because I see that you continue to criticise my edits no matter what I do. I have better things to do than argue with you over the constructive edits that I made to this article just because you don't like them. Best of luck with this DYK. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely confused as to why you've become so worked up by this DYK. I've done a number of DYKs before and this was definitely a first. Anyway, thanks for your very thorough notes - LavaBaron (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion but, no, I am not "worked up" by this DYK at all. Disagreements happen and when they do misunderstandings can also follow. We may have had a few of those during this process but that does not mean that I cannot appreciate your efforts. I think this is a great article about a remarkable boat and I think you wrote it very well. So thank you for that also. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dravocky LavaBaron (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

New review needed. The initial reviewer stated above, "since I edited the article I became involved with it and I would like someone uninvolved to approve this DYK". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Article is new enough (Aug.5 creation), long enough (3196 B), and thoroughly sourced. Spot checking found no issues with copying or close paraphrasing. The hook is short enough, interesting, and properly sourced. (Repeating the exact words of the hook in the article has never been a requirement.) But LavaBaron (talk · contribs) already has 10 DYKs, so QPQ is needed. Other than that one thing this looks good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, David Eppstein. I've just reviewed here. LavaBaron (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Fwiw, I dropped the requirement that the hook had to be verbatim but I did insist that any descriptors appearing on the hook, such as "pumping station", also appear in the article and be sourced by RS. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

QPQ done, and the questioned phrase "pump station" does in fact appear in the article with a reliable source (in a separate part of the article than the rest of the hook but so what), so I think we're good to go now. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree. Thank you David. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)