Template:Did you know nominations/Tegetthoff-class battleship
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet newness requirement
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tegetthoff-class battleship edit
- ... that the Tegetthoff-class battleships were the first and only dreadnoughts of the Austro-Hungarian Navy? Source: "The Tegtthoff-class ships hold the distinction for being the first and only dreadnought battleships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy" (Sokol 1968, p. 116)
- ALT1:... that the Tegetthoff-class battleship Szent István was the only battleship whose sinking was filmed during World War I? Source: "The battleship's sinking was one of only two on the high seas to ever be filmed, the other being that of the British battleship HMS Barham during World War II." (Sokol 1968, p. 135)
5x expanded by White Shadows (talk). Self-nominated at 19:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC).
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Nominated 21 days after expansion began - Long enough:
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ?
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
- none
The article is easily long enough and was indeed five-fold expanded by the nominator. The point of view is appropriately neutral, and it appears to be well supported by published sources, though many are offline. I'm a little concerned about close paraphrasing of the offline sources (the nominator's source quotation for the proposed hook is word-for-word the contents of the article; I've changed the hook to be more smooth and less identical to the source), but without access to the books it's difficult to tell. The first definite problem is the lack of a QPQ review; this nominator is way past five DYK credits. Then, the biggest issue is timeliness: the article was nominated twenty-one days after the expansion began (on March 26th, contrary to the heading under which the nomination was placed), way past the official seven-day deadline. I think we have to rule this one ineligible through failure to be "new enough" per the DYK rules. A very fine article, though! Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)