Template:Did you know nominations/Invisible ships
- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Invisible ships
- ... that the invisible ships myth is likely based on one explorer's surprise that natives of Botany Bay did not have a strong reaction upon seeing the HMS Endeavour? Source: [1]
- ALT1: ... that the myth of natives being unable to see European explorers' ships likely began with an explorer's surprise that natives didn't react more upon seeing such a ship? Source: [2]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/BattleSphere
- Comment: Open to other hooks... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Rhododendrites (talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Invisible ships; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Comment: An alternative hook:
- ALT2: ... that invisible ships are a myth? Source: [3]
- I think it's interesting due to its brevity. Simpler is better, less is more. I'll point out that a reviewer might object to the lack of page numbers in some sources. I'd suggest you fix that. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Article was new enough and is long enough. It is mostly policy compliant, although there should be a relevant reference for the paragraph at the end of the "Historical basis" section (as this is the core to the hook!). My preference is for ALT2, Festucalex's suggestion, as being pithy and witty. Readers should already be curious at what the heck invisible ships are, so let the focus be on the weirdness of the title itself. (Although this makes the "Australian natives really did see the ships!" sentence all the more important to stick a direct reference on, per WP:DYKCITE! Finally, QPQ does not appear to be done. So almost ready to go. Feel free to ping back once QPQ is done, and if you have any objection to shipping ALT2. SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: Updating at last. Cite added, QPQ done, and I agree that ALT2 is better. There's no direct line about "it's a myth" in the article, granted, but that the sources all call it as much (or, in some cases, use synonyms) is why I refer to it that way throughout the article. The "Contrary to the myth" line is my summary (presumably not too SYNTHy). Thanks for the review. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 10:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
LGTM, hook confirmed. ALT2 is approved.- As a side comment, I think that North Star Journal article is only questionably independent from the Fortean Times one... he doesn't cite it as a source, but there's some suspiciously similar phrasing going on, giving it a real feel of "lemme copy-paste this then paraphrase everything a little." It's most obvious in the final sentence, but seems to affect the article in general. SnowFire (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: Updating at last. Cite added, QPQ done, and I agree that ALT2 is better. There's no direct line about "it's a myth" in the article, granted, but that the sources all call it as much (or, in some cases, use synonyms) is why I refer to it that way throughout the article. The "Contrary to the myth" line is my summary (presumably not too SYNTHy). Thanks for the review. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 10:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
