Talk:Electricar DV4

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

DV4 electric dustcart

• ... that the City of Birmingham operated a class of electric dustcarts (example pictured)? De Boer, Roger F (1990). Birmingham's Electric Dustcarts. Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Trust
  • ALT1:... that an electric dustcart (pictured) operating in Birmingham continued to run after being hit by a bomb? De Boer, Roger F (1990). Birmingham's Electric Dustcarts. Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Trust. p. 25
  • ALT2:... that there is only one surviving Electricar DV4 (pictured)? Desmond, Kevin (2020). Electric Trucks: A History of Delivery Vehicles, Semis, Forklifts and Others. McFarland & Company. p. 240

• Reviewed: Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health

Created by Geni (talk). Self-nominated at 20:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC).

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

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting: - I like ALT1 best
• Other problems: - Maybe can add 'in World War II' to clarify when the bomb incident happened

QPQ: Done.

Overall: first time reviewer here - so other opinions welcome - i would go for ALT1 with the tweak to add WWII, whilst also noting that the article is only based on two sources Mujinga (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'd rather use the first hook if at all possible and I'm not need on lengthening them more than necessary.©Geni (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi thanks for the reply, I'd like to request a second opinion here. Mujinga (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Second opinion requested. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have added a photo to the nomination, as I feel it provides more hookiness and interest. I have also proposed slightly tweaked hooks below. Flibirigit (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT3: ... that Birmingham operated a class of electric dustcarts (example pictured)? De Boer, Roger F (1990). Birmingham's Electric Dustcarts. Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Trust
  • ALT4:... that an electric dustcart (pictured) continued to run after being hit by a Second World War bomb? De Boer, Roger F (1990). Birmingham's Electric Dustcarts. Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Trust. p. 25
  • ALT4a:... that the DV4 electric dustcart (pictured) continued to run after being hit by a bomb during the Second World War? --evrik ^(talk) 15:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comments: The introduction is too short for the article. It should be at least two to three sentences for the size of the article. I strongly suggest using Template:convert for the weights and measures in the article. Also, the article does not explicitly say that there is only one surving model of the dustcart to support ALT2. A new review will be needed once some changes are made. Flibirigit (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes made.©Geni (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I still do not see where the article explicitly says that there is only one surving model of the dustcart. It needs to be cited to support ALT2. Flibirigit (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Addressed.©Geni (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

article is ready for a new review, including the new hooks with the photo. I recuse myself from doing the review since I have worked on the article, and do not wish claim this as a credit. Thanks to anyone who helps review! Flibirigit (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Flibirigit:, I reworked the article. what about Alt4a, can you approve that? --evrik ^(talk) 15:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• evrik, ALT0 through ALT3 should not have been struck without an explanation or reasoning being given. I have previously stated that I have recused myself from the nomination since I worked on the article, and will not review any other hooks. Have a great day. Flibirigit (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the article is good to go. I suggest Alt4a. --evrik ^(talk) 17:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• New reviewer needed for ALT4a since it was proposed by the previous reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Re-reviewing: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, adequately referenced. As both refs are offline, unable to check for close paraphrasing. ALT4a is very hooky; offline hook fact AGF and cited inline. Image is freely licensed. QPQ done. ALT4a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)