Template:Did you know nominations/USS Herald (1798)
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
USS Herald (1798)
that a U.S. Navy ship sailed under three national flags?Sources: USN ship French privateer British slaver- ALT1:
that a U.S. Navy ships would be sold into piracy and slaving?Sources: USN ship French privateer British slaver - ALT2: ... that the American merchant ship Herald served in the U.S. Navy against France before becoming a French privateer, was then sold to Britain as a slaver, and ended her days as a West Indiaman? Sources: USN ship French privateer British slaver
- ALT1:
5x expanded by Acad Ronin (talk). Nominated by Broichmore (talk) at 18:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Please note that I have struck the first two hooks because it is not acceptable IMO to refer to a vessel just as "a US Navy ship" and I think the hooks are uninteresting in any case as lots of ships sailed under three different flags in the course of their careers or became slavers in this period at some point. That leaves ALT2, which I have copyedited, and also added the nominated article as it was missing from the hook. Please let me know Acad Ronin and Broichmore if the revised hook is acceptable, and I will continue with the review, otherwise a new hook will have to be found. Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Acad Ronin, you still need to supply a QPQ for this nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Gatoclass - Apologies, but what is a QPQ? Acad Ronin (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Acad Ronin, QPQ stands for "quid pro quo". Basically, it means that for everybody who has had more than five DYK credits (ie DYK articles promoted to the main page), they are expected to review one article nominated by somebody else for every article they themselves nominate. So you are supposed to review somebody else's nomination before I can promote this one. Gatoclass (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, Acad Ronin, it is the nominator who is responsible for supplying the QPQ, so it is Broichmore who needs to supply the quid pro quo review; they have at least five prior DYK credits, so the QPQ will be needed. I'll pop a message onto their talk page, in case this ping goes awry. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, and Acad Ronin: The nominator hasn't responded to the ping or talk page message (and indeed hasn't commented here since nominating) despite being active elsewhere on Wikipedia. Where does this leave the nom? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Acad Ronin, QPQ stands for "quid pro quo". Basically, it means that for everybody who has had more than five DYK credits (ie DYK articles promoted to the main page), they are expected to review one article nominated by somebody else for every article they themselves nominate. So you are supposed to review somebody else's nomination before I can promote this one. Gatoclass (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I have added a QPQ - Template:Did you know nominations/1st Wyoming Territorial Legislature. Please check it for me so I can complete this review. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, although I wonder if we could still wait for a response from the nom before proceeding. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, there is absolutely no need to wait even a minute longer, since Broichmore hasn't posted to this nomination since they opened it over six weeks ago, despite having been pinged here and on their talk page three weeks ago. They didn't even provide a QPQ—yours looks fine—so as far as I'm concerned they've abandoned the nomination. There is no conceivable need to delay completing your review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Broichmore got in touch with me about doing a QPQ as he's not comfortable doing them himself yet. I reviewed Lithodytes for this but see that Gatoclass has already kindly donated a QPQ. Now I'm here, I'll keep an eye on the article and help out if I spot something else that needs doing. I've given Broichmore some tips on the tools which can help in getting reviews done and will follow up at the London wikimeets. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Since Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset have confirmed the validity of the QPQ, the nomination is now complete, and I have therefore verified it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)