This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-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.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing 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.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland 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.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles
A fact from SS Ben Doran appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope this is the correct way to do this - I've never tried nominating more than one article at once before! I don't have a single source for all four wrecks (apologies), I hope the ones I have provided will suffice.
Created/expanded by Griceylipper (talk). Self-nominated at 23:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Griceylipper, I have made the necessary adjustments to this page so it works with the multiple nominations. I checked, and you have four prior DYK credits, which means you have one more freebie. However, credits count per article nominated, not per nomination, so if you had five or more DYK credits, you would need to undertake four reviews of other nominations in order for this four-article nomination to proceed. In this case, since you have that freebie, only three quid pro quo (QPQ) reviews will be needed. There's a DYK reviewing guide available, rules and supplementary explanations of them, and you can see a summary of the DYK criteria above the editing window when you're editing this very nomination. Best of luck, and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting it set up properly BlueMoonset. I hadn't considered the fact this would count for four credits instead of just one. It may take me a little while to get three reviews done as I've never done any before, and I will probably need to seek some second opinions from other reviewers on the ones I'm about to do. Thanks for the links as well, I will get back to you once I have three reviews done. Griceylipper (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These four well-written and interesting articles are new enough and long enough. The Image is appropriately licensed, the hook facts are cited inline, the articles are neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Just waiting for three QPQs to be done, - give me a ping when they're done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some personal circumstances have come up since I submitted this DYK nomination, and because of this I don't realistically think I'll be able to complete the three QPQs. I think it would be best if I requested to close the nomination. I'm very sorry for having wasted everyone's time.— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 00:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Griceylipper, I'm sorry to hear that; I hope everything will be okay. Cwmhiraeth, I could donate a QPQ if we could somehow come up with two other donations. But I'll leave it up to you as to whether we should try. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I came by to promote this, but most of these ships operated for years before they were wrecked. There is no description of their dimensions or their maritime history. I wonder if each of them should be renamed Wreckage of ...? Yoninah (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guys! You're all too kind, I did not expect this at all – thanks so much, it means a lot. Yoninah – in my (admittedly limited) research of each of these vessels, their wreckage seemed to be the most notable thing about each of them. So I would not be immediately opposed to perhaps Sinking of..., as there seem to be a few articles already with that prefix. However, my thinking was that leaving the articles' names as they are makes it easier for other editors to come in and add further maritime history later that I was unable to find. Sinking of... (at least to me) seems more appropriate for topics which are too big to contain in one article, e.g. Sinking of the RMS Titanic. I was in fact able to find some (again limited) information on dimensions, gross tonnage, etc., of which I tried to add as much as I could to the infoboxes for each. But if you'd prefer them renamed I'll not oppose it further.— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 12:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Griceylipper: Well, since you already have the information in the infobox, and it's there without any verification, I suggest that you add a small section after the lead called "Description" and write one or two lines based on the information in the infobox, and cite it. A small section will look fine, and then other editors can expand it if they wish. Yoninah (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah Good point. I have added short prose descriptions under their own headings for each vessel now, based on the figures in the infoboxes, with citations. Let me know what you think.— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YES! A great improvement to each article, thanks. No close paraphrasing seen in new text. Restoring tick per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These four well-written and interesting articles are new enough and long enough. The Image is appropriately licensed, the hook facts are cited inline, the articles are neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Just waiting for three QPQs to be done, - give me a ping when they're done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I'll donate the two unused QPQs from Template:Did you know nominations/Vardøger (band), Whitefrozen, Ghost Notes (Vardøger album). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
