Talk:Palmwood shipwreck

Creating in article space to invite in those more expert

I know little about the terminology surrounding shipwrecks and diving, please anyone who knows this stuff feel free to contribute or correct my errors! Valereee (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Great topic, which I found fascinating. As usual, DYK has been rushed to "press" because of the ridiculous rule that "newness" of editing is required. (Heck if this page had been around for 10 years with very little change in the past year, and someone pointed me to it, I would have found it very worthwhile as a DYK about something I did not know.)

Anyway, my specific complaint is that the hook was badly written: "may be the only such items in existence". The vague weasel "such" should have been cut, changing to something like "only remaining items of their kind" which fits the text you wrote.

Calling the items "unique" in the lede seems to contradict the body of the page, where the silk dress is described as:

"It is typical of dresses of the 1620s to 1630s in Western Europe and is believed to be an everyday dress."

It sounds like that dress wasn't unique, not even "unusual". A better adjective would be "rare" which fits the fact that nothing similar has been found. Also "in existence" sounds like hype. The word "extant" is more accurate in regard to "remaining". Martindo (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Martindo, thanks for the input! Both dresses are called "unique" by experts, quoted and attributed in the sections. We could put it in quotes in the lead, too, but I thought because that would need attribution there, too, it would be overwordy. But YMMV, I don't have a strong opinion on it. Edit at will.

Yes, that would have been a better wording I think! I did tag a lot of wikiprojects trying to find someone who was interested.

I don't think it's so much DYK's 7-day rule as it is that I nominated it the same day I created it (I do that to make sure I don't forget), a reviewer found it interesting enough that it was reviewed very quickly, a promoter found it unusual enough that it got promoted very quickly, and we're currently on 2-a-days. That means it was only 8 days between creation and appearance. The more common timeline between is at least 4-6 weeks. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and re: not even "unusual" -- you mean because it's an everyday dress? An example of an everyday dress is unusual because much of what we know of clothing of the time comes from portraits; women typically didn't wear their everyday dresses when posing for a portrait but instead the most expensive and currently fashionable dress they owned. And non-portrait renderings of women at the time tended to show them in some degree of nudity or as biblical saints or martyrs or both. :) There apparently aren't a lot of detailed paintings of upper-class women in everyday dresses. Valereee (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Great point about "everyday" as an example of "herstory" (sadly a neglected field of study once again, as media focus on finding "super-heroes" eveywhere).

I've found ambiguous writing and some outright erros in other DYK in recent months and look askance at the whole project. IMO it's a serious mistake to *require* recency of edit because it reduces scrutiny/polishing time.

The point of DYK is that the WP entry is something people usually don't think of. I bet there are thousands of entries that would qualify, many of which have not received "significant edits" in the past year, let alone the past week.Martindo (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Totally. Millions of articles could be taken to GA or expanded 5x. Valereee (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The silk dress from the Palmwood wreck

image with background removed

• ... that two dresses (one pictured) recovered from a 17th-century shipwreck may be the only such items in existence? Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/17/world/dutch-palmwood-shipwreck-finds-scn/index.html “There may only be two such dresses in the whole world. And they are both here, on Texel.”
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kae Miller
  • Comment: I feel very strongly that this hook needs its image, and this image besides being important to the hook and incredibly unusual and rare also helps address systemic bias, as it's both outside of the English-speaking world and is a subject that is typically associated with women. There's an alternate image with white background if we think that would be clearer at size, happy to swap it out at the article as I've been waffling.

Created by Valereee (talk). Self-nominated at 17:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Palmwood shipwreck; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - question
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article: - n
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Valereee: Good article. Though, should the youtube video from Museum Kaap Skil be used as a source? also the alt picture you suggested isn't used in the article which it needs to be. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Onegreatjoke, thanks for the review! I wouldn't normally use most youtube videos as a source, but this one is professionally produced by a museum; usually I would consider that a reliable source. I'm happy to change the images out if someone prefers one over the other! I just didn't think the article needed both. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You know what, changed my mind: I've included both images. No real reason not to. Valereee (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Approving under the assumption that the youtube source is ok. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Guardian article

Hey, @Abductive! The reason I'd written it that way was because the Guardian article is from 2016 and the Kaap Skil's info is what's currently on their website. I think it's possible the theories are in flux, so I wanted to make clear it was a 2016 theory that it was likely a 12-ship fleet from Dover etc. Valereee (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written as an encyclopedia, not as a newspaper article, as explained in the WP:NOTNEWS policy, which states that, among other things, Wikipedia is not written in news style. Newspapers are scrupulous about mentioning what media source published something first. Wikipedia has the refs system to give such attribution, and WP:INTEXT states, It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal. Abductive (reasoning) 08:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, I know that, lol. My point is that it was a theory in 2016 as reported by a newspaper. The current theory, as reported by a museum, is different and may mean that theory has been debunked. I made a slight change yesterday to fix it, but I don't actually think "It has been proposed" is a great change, as it's just begging for a "by whom" tag. Valereee (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the Guardian proposed it. Somebody they interviewed? Abductive (reasoning) 15:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

An early theory by Nadine Akkerman? Valereee (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)