- 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 SL93 (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jim Sheddan
- ... that Jim Sheddan was forced to ditch his Hawker Typhoon in the North Sea after it had been damaged by anti-aircraft fire and spent 19 hours in an inflatable dinghy? Source: Lambert, Max (2011). Day After Day: New Zealanders in Fighter Command. Auckland: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 978-1-86950-844-9. Page 249-251
- ALT1: ... that after Jim Sheddan ditched his Hawker Typhoon in the North Sea upon it being damaged by anti-aircraft fire, he spent 19 hours in an inflatable dinghy?"Source: Multiple in the article.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Alien: Covenant
Improved to Good Article status by Zawed (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 15:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC).
Reviewing... 2603:7000:2143:8500:5942:2023:24C1:44D1 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact
; "AGF" as to the rest of the hook. - Interesting:
- Other problems: - Consider (in part because the emphasis is better placed I believe not on the ditching, but the 19 hours) changing the hook to: "... that after Jim Sheddan ditched his Hawker Typhoon in the North Sea upon it being damaged by anti-aircraft fire, he spent 19 hours in an inflatable dinghy?"
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article, most sources are offline and I have assumed good faith and care as to those rather than reviewed them (this relates as well to plagiarism and copyright and hook review), though there is adequate sourcing the editor may wish to consider using as well [1] and [2] as sources that readers can access on the internet, and finally there is an image in the article that the editor may wish to have considered as part of the DYK (though it is not especially good or dramatic). 2603:7000:2143:8500:5942:2023:24C1:44D1 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: Thanks for the review. Added the inline citations. I'm okay with using the hook "... that after Jim Sheddan ditched his Hawker Typhoon in the North Sea upon it being damaged by anti-aircraft fire, he spent 19 hours in an inflatable dinghy?" As that sounds better. Honestly, considering that you seem too have begun being active on wikipedia you should make an account. Pinging Schwede since I dont know how to ping IPs. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. I see you indicate that you added the inline citations, but I somehow do not see that being the case in the article, as I see multiple sentences that include facts reflected in the hook that do not have inline citations. As to the new hook - would you like to reflect that by altering your original hook (or adding it as a new alternative - I don't know which approach is preferred)? You didn't respond to the points as to the accessible refs and photo you might wish to include in the article/DYK, but perhaps you do not see them as helpful. 2603:7000:2143:8500:4DF7:E350:D104:EEA (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Schwede66: since I don't know how to ping IPs. About the picture, I personally find the picture to be too blurry for me to want to use it. About the inline citations. I tried to add some but Zawed got rid of them in order to consolidate the citations. Which I don't blame for it. However, this does mean that Zawed must decide to add the inline citations for the article since he has the sources and knows this article better than I do. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Does Zawed understand that the effect of removing the refs is that it prevents DYK from being passed, if the DYK rules are adhered to? Perhaps, if not, Zawed would have a different view about removing them. You didn't respond to the points as to the additional accessible refs you might wish to include in the article, but perhaps you do not see them as helpful. 2603:7000:2143:8500:3484:A520:5DBA:2ACC (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi all, I hadn't realised the implications for the DYK nomination of consolidating the refs. I have rewritten the relevant section of the article and took the opportunity to add a few more details although the facts as outlined in the proposed hook are still there. Each sentence relevant to the hook is cited, one to an online source if it helps RE verifiability. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. Help me here. The rule seems to be (whether sensible or not is not my call) that each fact in the hook
must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact
. Unless I'm badly missing something, that does not seem to be the case now - it would have been more easily addressed in the prior construct, by simply adding the refs at the end of each sentence. Am I missing something obvious? 2603:7000:2143:8500:2992:7305:2C19:C33E (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)- Are you interpreting it as all the facts in the hook have to be sourced to a single sentence in the article? My read is that each fact within the hook should be traced to a citation. The hook has multiple facts (Sheddan's Typhoon was damaged, he had to ditch in the North Sea, he spent 19 hours in a dinghy), which essentially can be found in the first three sentences of the 2nd paragraph of the "Service with No. 486 Squadron" section of the article. All those sentences end with inline citations. Zawed (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, this had fallen off my watchlist. Zawed's interpretation of the rules is correct.
- Are you interpreting it as all the facts in the hook have to be sourced to a single sentence in the article? My read is that each fact within the hook should be traced to a citation. The hook has multiple facts (Sheddan's Typhoon was damaged, he had to ditch in the North Sea, he spent 19 hours in a dinghy), which essentially can be found in the first three sentences of the 2nd paragraph of the "Service with No. 486 Squadron" section of the article. All those sentences end with inline citations. Zawed (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. Help me here. The rule seems to be (whether sensible or not is not my call) that each fact in the hook
- Hi all, I hadn't realised the implications for the DYK nomination of consolidating the refs. I have rewritten the relevant section of the article and took the opportunity to add a few more details although the facts as outlined in the proposed hook are still there. Each sentence relevant to the hook is cited, one to an online source if it helps RE verifiability. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Does Zawed understand that the effect of removing the refs is that it prevents DYK from being passed, if the DYK rules are adhered to? Perhaps, if not, Zawed would have a different view about removing them. You didn't respond to the points as to the additional accessible refs you might wish to include in the article, but perhaps you do not see them as helpful. 2603:7000:2143:8500:3484:A520:5DBA:2ACC (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Schwede66: since I don't know how to ping IPs. About the picture, I personally find the picture to be too blurry for me to want to use it. About the inline citations. I tried to add some but Zawed got rid of them in order to consolidate the citations. Which I don't blame for it. However, this does mean that Zawed must decide to add the inline citations for the article since he has the sources and knows this article better than I do. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. I see you indicate that you added the inline citations, but I somehow do not see that being the case in the article, as I see multiple sentences that include facts reflected in the hook that do not have inline citations. As to the new hook - would you like to reflect that by altering your original hook (or adding it as a new alternative - I don't know which approach is preferred)? You didn't respond to the points as to the accessible refs and photo you might wish to include in the article/DYK, but perhaps you do not see them as helpful. 2603:7000:2143:8500:4DF7:E350:D104:EEA (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Starting a fresh review as this one seems to have been abandoned by the IP a month ago. Article was recently promoted to GA and is neutral and well referenced (to almost entirely offline sources). QPQ provided above. The hook is interesting and all elements of the hook are cited appropriately inline. AGF for the hook verification and also for copyvio. 97198 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: Thanks for the review. Added the inline citations. I'm okay with using the hook "... that after Jim Sheddan ditched his Hawker Typhoon in the North Sea upon it being damaged by anti-aircraft fire, he spent 19 hours in an inflatable dinghy?" As that sounds better. Honestly, considering that you seem too have begun being active on wikipedia you should make an account. Pinging Schwede since I dont know how to ping IPs. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
