A fact from Marie Empress appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 May 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that British actress Marie Empress was last seen on a Cunard liner bound for New York?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article was created or improved during the following events hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
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 Kingsif (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adequate sourcing: - The helper script I installed flags history.com as "generally unreliable". I am not sure if that disqualifies it, because the specific news used here seems to be reliable to me. So maybe not an issue, but I want to double-check.
Overall: I am also not happy with the image caption. It reads a bit sensational; I'd prefer it more neutral, like the caption in the article. (Please note that I'm not an experienced editor – this is my 2nd review – so please tell me if I could do something better.) --LordPeterII (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. Answer above to your question. I changed the image caption. If you can suggest a better one then just change it. Victuallers (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers: After some consideration, sourcing is fine. The script (this one: User:Headbomb/unreliable) only tagged history.com, but it can be acceptable if quality is fine, as is the case here imo.
And ah, now I get it! I'm so used to reading "that" in the hook that I thought it was broken. Still not sure if the original hook would fulfil the standards for a DYK, so I'd like to ping a veteran like maybe @Cwmhiraeth for their opinion – would you accept the original hook?
If not, I will approve ALT1. Oh, and I changed the caption to what I deem accurate. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LordPeterII: I don't know the answer to your question, but I suggest you just give both hooks a tick, as there will be other editors considering the same point before this gets to the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: Okay thanks! I just didn't want to make an obvious mistake. I'll trust your judgement and that of our DYK queue admins. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Eh forgot to tick my approval.) --LordPeterII (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning History.com, the note from RSN is "Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories." I see no reason why this article would allow it as a source, given this is particular the areas where History.com is known to be inaccurate/sensionalist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: Okay, thanks for the explanation. I wouldn't really have noticed without your script (which is awesome!), and was unsure what to do when it got flagged. But I read most of the article and it sounded reasonably reliable to me, mostly because a lot of its information is repeated in the newspaper used to source the hook. The tone is ofc not as we like it on Wikipedia, but it didn't sound like it was pushing any more conspiracy or stuff than the mystery that it already is. @Victuallers: Do you, by any chance, have an alternative source for the parts referenced to history.com? That would be best, but since it's a relatively obscure subject I am doubtful.
Again, I really am no expert editor, but I am also not keen to block this DYK categorically. If any of the admins see this while preparing the queue, feel free to return this if you agree about the sourcing issue. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LordPeterII: Thanks for sticking with it - actually pretty easy to find alt sources. I have replaced History.com with "The Times" and "The Gazette" which are touchstones of reliability and the article is substantially unchanged. You are doing a cracking job. (I've been creating DYKs for 14 years and its a good place to contribute). The delay has worked out well as it was written for Women in Red by Penny Richards and the project has a Marie/Mary/May theme this month. Victuallers (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]