Template:Did you know nominations/Electric fire engine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Electric fire engine[edit]

(
)
Electric fire engine (left) with steam fire engine
Electric fire engine (left) with steam fire engine
  • ... that the electric fire engine (pictured) was touted to be better than the steam fire-engine of the nineteenth century and was designed to be its replacement?
  • ALT1 ... that the electric fire engine (pictured) – touted to be better than the steam fire-engine of the nineteenth century – was designed to be its replacement?
Source is Sachs (1895), page 312: "The electrically-operated fire engine would possess a number of advantages over the steam fire engine."
  • ALT2 ... that the electric fire engine (pictured) was touted to have a number of advantages over the steam fire engine of the nineteenth century?

Created by Doug Coldwell (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by Doug Coldwell (talk) at 11:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC).

  • New enough. Much longer than required. No glaring neutrality issues or copyright violations. Plenty of reliable inline citations. Hook length (141 characters) and content are fine. Image licensed as public domain. QPQ is done. @Doug Coldwell: My only concerns are "was designed to be its replacement" and "be better". I read most of Cassier's Magazine "Something About Fire engines" article, and those things don't seem to be explicitly stated. A remedy that is also more concise (124 characters) would be "... that the electric fire engine (pictured) was touted to have a number of advantages over the steam fire-engine of the nineteenth century?" However, I know that I'm a stickler about hooks, so if you were really set on the one you put forth, let me know and I'll tick it through. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Doug Coldwell: the image might be appealing, but the hook doesn't have a lot of pep. Yoninah (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that the electric fire engine (pictured) was touted to have a number of advantages over the steam fire engine of the nineteenth century to be able to put out a fire quicker? @Yoninah:@Godsy: Will that work?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I just read the article and see that the whole thing was a proposed model, not a real one (the hook makes it sound real). As a 21st-century denizen, I would just assume that the electric model replaced and was better than the steam model. It would be hooky to say that despite its benefits, the electric model wasn't adopted, or some other bet-you-didn't-expect-that fact. Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT4 ... that the electric fire engine (pictured) was touted to have a number of advantages over the steam fire engine of the nineteenth century, but was not implemented because of fickle electric circuits?
@Yoninah: Will ALT4 work = its 199 characters. The reference is #11 at the bottom of news clip of Lawrence Daily Journal of 16 Sep 1898, Fri - Page 4 titled "Electric Fire Engine - One Recently Invented with Several Advantages Claimed for it." --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's better. We could shorten it to:
  • ALT4a: ... that the electric fire engine (pictured) had numerous advantages over the 19th-century steam fire engine, but was not implemented because of fickle electrical circuits?
  • ALT4b: ... that the electric fire engine (pictured) had numerous advantages over the 19th-century steam fire engine, but was not implemented because a storm could knock out the power?
  • Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Yup! Like BOTH your ALT4 alternate proposals. You pick and I will be happy with that. Either is o.k. with me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I'm more partial to ALT4b because it paraphrases the source better. Calling on another reviewer to check ALT4b. Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT4b at 172 characters is well within the limit, interesting, hooky, well-paraphrased, and cited inline. Good to go. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Electric_fire_engine&oldid=776136402"