- The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Rum Ration
edit- ... that when partaking of the rum ration, sailors were required to loyally toast the Monarch?
- Reviewed: Imperial Gift
- Comment: Alt1: that the rum ration was abolished because the Royal Navy's leadership was concerned that it made sailors less capable?
Created/expanded by The C of E (talk). Self nom at 11:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The article is new enough and long enough. The hook is interesting and short enough. But I do have some question or concerns. First, "rum ration" does not appear to be a proper noun, so it should not be capitalized either in the hook, the article title or the body of the article. Second, the alt hook has a grammar problem in that Navy is singular, so it should be either "Navy was concerned" or maybe "the Navy's leadership was ..." Third, the BBC article cited as an in-line source for the first hook doesn't say anything about toasting the monarch being "required." (Did I miss it?) Fourth, I'm not sure what DYK policy is with respect to whether articles that are largely split from pre-existing articles qualify as new content. Here, it looks like much of the content was already on Wikipedia in Rum#Naval_rum, Black Tot Day and splice the mainbrace. Let me know why you think the content should be treated as "new"? Cbl62 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I didn't look that much at those articles but I don't think that all of it was already on here. For example, the information about the barrel wasn't, nor the dates of the other Navies giving up the ration, nor the compensatory beer amount (which actually contradicts what is said in the Black Tot Day article). If capitalisation is the problem, I'll change it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The capitalization, grammar, and sourcing issues do need to be addressed. And if there's a factual contradiction between two articles, shouldn't that be resolved? Cbl62 (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've done the grammar in the second hook, moved the page to Rum ration and found another source for the first hook. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the alt hook, "leadership" is singular, so it should be "leadership was ..." Also, I don't see the reference to the mandatory toast in the new source you added. Can you provide a page number? Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. The source is on page 21 where they say "to the Queen, God bless her". The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I had seen that reference. It does not say that sailors were required to toast the monarch before drinking their rum. Cbl62 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Very well, then what about alt1? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The article still contains the unsourced statement about sailors being required to toast the monarch. That should either be sourced or removed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Removed it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be sure there's no issue with the pre-existing content, I've left a query on the DYK discussion page. Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- For Alt1, I think it's important to say "Royal Navy" rather than "Navy", to make it clear which of the navies had that reason. Also, since this is a British hook, shouldn't British English hold sway in it, odd though it might seem to Americans such as I? I believe (though I'm no expert) that "the Royal Navy were" would be correct, given their rules, which if I understand correctly would extend to "the Royal Navy leadership were". Is there someone with experience in this area of British English who can clarify? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- This Brit would say "the Royal Navy was..." as there's only one navy of that name. As for the leadership, again it's grammatically singular, but many people treat such things as plural nowadays, no point in being ideological. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying; I was afraid I didn't know exactly how it worked, as proved to be the case. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- This Brit would say "the Royal Navy was..." as there's only one navy of that name. As for the leadership, again it's grammatically singular, but many people treat such things as plural nowadays, no point in being ideological. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- For Alt1, I think it's important to say "Royal Navy" rather than "Navy", to make it clear which of the navies had that reason. Also, since this is a British hook, shouldn't British English hold sway in it, odd though it might seem to Americans such as I? I believe (though I'm no expert) that "the Royal Navy were" would be correct, given their rules, which if I understand correctly would extend to "the Royal Navy leadership were". Is there someone with experience in this area of British English who can clarify? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be sure there's no issue with the pre-existing content, I've left a query on the DYK discussion page. Cbl62 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Removed it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The article still contains the unsourced statement about sailors being required to toast the monarch. That should either be sourced or removed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Very well, then what about alt1? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the alt hook, "leadership" is singular, so it should be "leadership was ..." Also, I don't see the reference to the mandatory toast in the new source you added. Can you provide a page number? Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've done the grammar in the second hook, moved the page to Rum ration and found another source for the first hook. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The capitalization, grammar, and sourcing issues do need to be addressed. And if there's a factual contradiction between two articles, shouldn't that be resolved? Cbl62 (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I didn't look that much at those articles but I don't think that all of it was already on here. For example, the information about the barrel wasn't, nor the dates of the other Navies giving up the ration, nor the compensatory beer amount (which actually contradicts what is said in the Black Tot Day article). If capitalisation is the problem, I'll change it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- In an article about the Queen's Navy, best to use the Queen's English. So I've changed "alt 1" to reflect the proper grammar. Still awaiting input on the "new" content issue. I posted on the DYK discussion page, but there's been no response yet. Cbl62 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
What's going on here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
We got sidetracked by a question or two. Ready to go, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
