Talk:USS Hoggatt Bay

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: rejected by BuySomeApples (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The aircraft carrier

• ... that the Kaiser built an American aircraft carrier (pictured)? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190616103407/http://shipbuildinghistory.com/shipyards/emergencylarge/kvancouver.htm
  • ALT
  • Comment: I am exempt from a QPQ since I have less than 5 DYK credits. I'm thinking this is good for an April Fools' nomination, but since there will be 2 pictures then, I'm not sure if the people at DYK will have to make a decision about which hook gets the picture.

Improved to Good Article status by Stikkyy (talk). Nominated by Heythereimaguy (talk) at 17:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC).

• Comment: This is a pretty excellent quirky hook, but I'd say probably not good for April Fools' Day, since the misdirection isn't the bolded article. Also, I added "U.S." to the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I see. I just want to let you know that I changed "U.S." to "American", as I believe it sounds more natural that way. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Heythereimaguy: Fair enough. No one seems to have reviewed this, so I'll get around to it. Article was promoted to GA on December 4, making it new enough, and it's also long enough, plagiarism-free, and neutral. I'm not quite sure if www.ShipbuildingHistory.com or Hazegray.org are reliable sources—it'd be helpful if someone could speak to that. the hook is interesting and cited, but it is not cited inline at the end of the relevant sentence in the article, so that'll need to be fixed. QPQ not required. We're nearly there! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron I would say that ShipBuildingHistory is unreliable. ShipBuildingHistory's home page reveals that it is operated by one person named Tim Colton and I can't find evidence of him being an expert in the field. The other website is only operated by Andrew C. Toppan, but it should be fine due to him having books published by Arcadia Publishing and being a ship historian per the author tab here. His works have also been referenced in the books Battleship Oklahoma BB-37, Network of Bones: Conjuring Key West and the Florida Keys, and No Higher Honor: Saving the USS Samuel Roberts in the Persian Gulf per Google Books. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, SL93! Okay, so both the article and the hook are gonna need a new citation to replace shipbuildinghistory.com. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't answered for a while. I will work on the problems. Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I found a source from the US Navy that COULD replace shipbuildinghistory.com, but doesn't mention when the contract was awarded or when it was laid down. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/h/hoggatt-bay.html Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Heythereimaguy: sorry I've been away! My inbox has been piling up and up. That source works fine, as long as it mentions the Kaiser part in the hook and portions of the article that are no longer sourced are cut. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm giving 7 more days for the issues to be fixed. SL93 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Rejecting. SL93 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I've left messages on both noms' talk pages requesting that they return. If they still do not return within a few days the nom can be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the update. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither nom has edited since the closure marking so at the very least I'd wait either a week or them to return to editing, whichever comes first, before closing the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's been a week since SL93's original closure marking and there's still been no response from either nominator despite multiple messages left on their talk pages. Unfortunately it seems that the situation is not going to change anytime soon and as such the nomination is regretfully marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)