From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article fails WP:V

Per WP:V, text in Wiki articles must be verifiable to published information and readers must be able to locate that information somewhere, somehow. Naval Historical Society of Australia gives no title, date, nothing to indicate what the published info is. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Source appears to be website linked in bibliography. Now clarified, with convenience link also given in footnote. Kablammo ( talk) 09:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you know? 30 Oct 2010

Who wrote the crap DYK lead for this article? Very poor grasp of reality there! Downsize43 ( talk) 11:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is not a very good hook. Here is the history:
[1] nom
[2] suggestion for another hook
[3] approval of revised hook
[4] move to prep. Thereafter the original hook apparently was used instead. I don't know when that substitution occurred.
The original nominator was not the author of this article, nor were the other folks involved. They are unlikely to see your comments here. You may get a better response if you took your complaint to Wikipedia talk:Did you know (but I would lose the "crap" in your post), as it seems like the folks who run DYK selected the wrong hook. Kablammo ( talk) 12:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article fails WP:V

Per WP:V, text in Wiki articles must be verifiable to published information and readers must be able to locate that information somewhere, somehow. Naval Historical Society of Australia gives no title, date, nothing to indicate what the published info is. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Source appears to be website linked in bibliography. Now clarified, with convenience link also given in footnote. Kablammo ( talk) 09:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you know? 30 Oct 2010

Who wrote the crap DYK lead for this article? Very poor grasp of reality there! Downsize43 ( talk) 11:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is not a very good hook. Here is the history:
[1] nom
[2] suggestion for another hook
[3] approval of revised hook
[4] move to prep. Thereafter the original hook apparently was used instead. I don't know when that substitution occurred.
The original nominator was not the author of this article, nor were the other folks involved. They are unlikely to see your comments here. You may get a better response if you took your complaint to Wikipedia talk:Did you know (but I would lose the "crap" in your post), as it seems like the folks who run DYK selected the wrong hook. Kablammo ( talk) 12:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook