Template:Did you know nominations/Marsala Punic shipwreck
- 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 Bruxton (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Marsala Punic shipwreck
- ... that the 3rd century BC Marsala Punic shipwreck's exceptional preservation allowed researchers to study the structure, construction methods, and materials used in Punic shipbuilding? Source: Frost 1981 (see article references)
- ALT1: ... that parts of the Marsala Punic shipwreck were marked with alphabetic signs intended to facilitate and speed up assembly? Source: Frost 1981 (see article references)
- ALT2: ... that the remains of the 3rd century BC Marsala Punic shipwreck allowed researchers to study the structure, construction methods, and materials used in Punic shipbuilding? Source: Frost 1981 (see article references)
ALT3: ... that the 3rd century BC Marsala Punic Ship is the earliest warship known from archeological evidence?Source: Anzovin 2000 (see article references)- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mavis Paterson
Created by Elias Ziade (talk). Self-nominated at 01:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Marsala Punic shipwreck; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Everything is good (date, size, content, hook) except my minor quibble regarding main hook (which is perhaps more interesting than alt) - the article does not use the word "exceptional", nor does it provide a quotation that the preservation state is "exceptional". Can this be remedied? PS. I am unsure if QPQ review is needed, the nom seems to have nominated several things in the past, based on his talk page archives, but the tool is lagging and I can't be bothered to spend 10-20m analyzing their archives, so I am AGFing the lack of the review as not required, while noting that best practices encoure the nom to review something in exchange to reduce the backlog. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Piotrus, thanks for the review. I will reword the hook later on. Please note that I do have to do a QPQ but I am a little busy ATM. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Piotrus I added an alternative, non-contentious hook and will QPQ soon. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Elias Ziade, Hook 3 is good, perhaps the best (short and interesting). Do ping me when the QPQ is done so I can approve this formally :) Thank you for the interesting article! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Piotrus I have reviewed a submission. Thanks for following up. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed, GTG! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Elias Ziade and Piotrus: I wanted to use the hook that was approved but I could not verify it on the page. I placed a {{failed verification}} tag on the sentence about earliest. Please check. Bruxton (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bruxton, please recheck, entry 4240 on page 275 of in cited reference.el.ziade (talkallam) 00:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Elias Ziade: Double checked and cannot find "earliest warship known from archeological evidence" Bruxton (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bruxton, the entire book is about historical firsts! I will remove your tag. el.ziade (talkallam) 00:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but our rules do not permit us to make inferences. The tag was appropriate and you removed it but I am not going to edit war it. We cannot put it in our voice. Maybe another promotor can sort it out. Bruxton (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bruxton, I think you're abusing your power here. Bravo for your retaliative response. Perhaps another promotor will know how to read the source better, probably most will side with you, and maybe they will choose another hook.00:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am sorry you feel that way. I have no power. I am just a behind the scenes editor who checks out DYK hooks for promotion. And if I cannot approve them I leave them to someone else. Hopefully another prep builder will verify and promote your hook. I wanted your hook for prep 7, but I chose another. Bruxton (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton and Elias Ziade: Let's cool down, everyone. It is good to spotcheck. I looked at Anzovin 2000, p.275, cited as a ref here (the book is easily accessible through IA). This ship is listed there as archeologically studied warship, and the book is indeed presumably a list of "first of", so I think the fact is verified. I am mildly concerned to what degree this is a reliable source, but for DYK purposes, I think it is enough if we attribute it in the body. See also: Famous First Facts. If this is a sticking point, we can also attribute this in the hook ("According to Famous First Facts...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am sorry you feel that way. I have no power. I am just a behind the scenes editor who checks out DYK hooks for promotion. And if I cannot approve them I leave them to someone else. Hopefully another prep builder will verify and promote your hook. I wanted your hook for prep 7, but I chose another. Bruxton (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bruxton, I think you're abusing your power here. Bravo for your retaliative response. Perhaps another promotor will know how to read the source better, probably most will side with you, and maybe they will choose another hook.00:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bruxton, the entire book is about historical firsts! I will remove your tag. el.ziade (talkallam) 00:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Elias Ziade: Double checked and cannot find "earliest warship known from archeological evidence" Bruxton (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bruxton, please recheck, entry 4240 on page 275 of in cited reference.el.ziade (talkallam) 00:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Elias Ziade: I've struck ALT3, and will remove this claim from the article. As leekycauldron pointed out at WT:DYK, the source is outdated; the Mazatos shipwreck, discovered in 2006, is older than this one (sourceTWL). @Piotrus: pinging to inform you that the nom has been reopened; whether you want to continue the review is up to you. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sojourner in the earth, Thanks. The other hooks are fine, and we could run this tweaked to "one of the earliest" too. So I think this is still GTG outside one hook needing a rework. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sojourner in the earth, thanks, I don’t mind removing it. The Mazotos ship is however the oldest commercial (not military) ship. I am not aware of more recent, older military ship discoveries. The other hooks are not contentious. Thanks for taking the time to look at this.el.ziade (talkallam) 11:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- You're right, sorry, I didn’t notice that. Other concerns have been raised about the source at DYK talk so I'll leave it struck for now. Piotrus says the other hooks are good to go so I'll tick this on his behalf. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- You're right, sorry, I didn’t notice that. Other concerns have been raised about the source at DYK talk so I'll leave it struck for now. Piotrus says the other hooks are good to go so I'll tick this on his behalf.
- Sojourner in the earth, thanks, I don’t mind removing it. The Mazotos ship is however the oldest commercial (not military) ship. I am not aware of more recent, older military ship discoveries. The other hooks are not contentious. Thanks for taking the time to look at this.el.ziade (talkallam) 11:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sojourner in the earth, Thanks. The other hooks are fine, and we could run this tweaked to "one of the earliest" too. So I think this is still GTG outside one hook needing a rework. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
