Template:Did you know nominations/Berkshire No. 7, Elmer S. Dailey, and Priscilla Dailey
- 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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Berkshire No. 7, Elmer S. Dailey, Priscilla Dailey[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that the Berkshire No. 7, Elmer S. Dailey, and Priscilla Dailey, which sank together in 1974, are the only National Register of Historic Places-listed shipwrecks in Connecticut?
- Reviewed: Naked Jungle
Created by ChrisGualtieri (talk). Self nominated at 18:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC).
- If you are nominating 3 articles, you need to submit 3 QPQs. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- It should be fine. I didn't even have 5 DYK when this was done. @Yoninah:, it seems odd to change the rules mid-run. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand your last sentence. Yes, I only see 2 DYK credits on your talk page. Yoninah (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm saying I was exempt from any "Quid Pro Quo" and its one DYK, not three, but I still reviewed and prevented a bad DYK from hitting I don't know who you are or why you are telling me I owe you or others some more work, but its not nice to change the "way" something works mid-place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm a regular reviewer at DYK, and I apologize if my familiarity with the rules made me sound a little abstract. I was just referring to Rule H4 in the DYK review guide, which has been in place for more than a year. It's very nice that you reviewed a nomination even though you didn't have to. I'll proceed with your DYK review now. Best, Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
All 3 articles are new enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref is verified and cited inline in all 3 articles. QPQ done (but not necessary). Interesting articles! Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks @Yoninah: - I actually got all three to GA since the time of nomination for creation too! I am not familiar with you, but I am a bit odd as a contributor - I'm new to this area, but I am a strong editor. You'll see me around more, hopefully. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
