Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Saracen (P247)

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) 22:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

HMS Saracen (P247)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Saracen in July 1942

• ... that HMS Saracen (pictured) was sunk during her 13th patrol shortly after midnight of a Friday 13th? Source: https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/3432.html

• Reviewed: Karl Plagge

5x expanded by L293D (talk). Self-nominated at 02:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC).

• @L293D: Date and length fine. Hook is ok however I do have a question about the source, what makes uboat.net a reliable source? (just asking to allay my concerns as it does seem to have a user submission feature). QPQ is done and no close paraphrasing. Please ping me with your response. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Many Good Articles have uboat.net as main source, see Talk:German submarine U-43 (1939)/GA1. There's also a page about this at User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability. Uboat.net is cited by several highly reliable book sources and thus is considered reliable as well. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Fair enough for me. Good to go then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but it is several hundred characters shy of a 5x expansion. On August 3, 2018, before expansion began, the character count was 2,421. Today the character count is 11,481. Another 624 characters are needed for a 5x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: anyway, this article also passed GA two days after this DYK was reviewed. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm aware of that, and it puts us in a difficult situation IAR-wise. Why didn't you just wait to nominate until after you received the GA? Yoninah (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Because I was convinced that I had expanded the article 5x, and I thought that even if someone found an issue with that, the article would pass GA anyway. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that an article has been nominated at GAN and DYK at about the same time, and its a crapshoot as to what will be reviewed when. Usually, the DYK will be long-since completed and off the main page before the GA review starts (some wait six to ten months!); in this case (admittedly more likely with Milhist-related articles), the GA review concluded shortly after the DYK review did. I don't see anything wrong with starting the two processes at about the same time, once the article has been completed; there's no guarantee that either nomination will succeed. For DYK, the risk is that the article will fall short of a 5x expansion, and could fail if not expanded. Indeed, that should have happened here had The C of E done an accurate length check: DYKcheck is very clear that it isn't 5x. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• So as I understand it, even if the nomination had been rejected for being short of an expansion, the GA approval that came two days later would have boosted it into the approval column. Restoring tick per the rest of The C of E's review. Yoninah (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)