Template:Did you know nominations/Stabilized Automatic Bomb Sight

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: rejected by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
referencing

Stabilized Automatic Bomb Sight[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nom at 18:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Hello Maury, an interesting article. I didn't get too far with the review because
(1) your hook has no inline citation, and (2) there are several non-cited paragraphs in the article, though that should be easily remedied.
Size looks good: on nom day the article was 24573 B (4152 words) "readable prose size", up from 831 B (138 words) for the previous edit.
Once you get these issues addressed, please report back here with an update. — Sctechlaw (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the problem in (1) exactly? The ref that's on the statement in the article now says "at least two". But I'm not sure, are you talking about the count, or something else? The count is confusing because different sources say different things. Perhaps the note here explains the confusion. Or do you mean something more direct, like this one? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Your DYK hook must be cited with an inline citation in the article, per the DYK rules. Additionally, each paragraph in the article needs at least one cite. Not sure what you mean by "count". If you mean article-size, then that's okay. The article newness and the hook length are okay also. Take a peek at the DYK rules, cited above near the top of this page. Hope this helps you. — Sctechlaw (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still confused - when I read the citation for the hook it directly credits the 617 with sinking the ship. The 617 had fully converted to the SABS long before this, in full operational use a full year earlier. So I'm not sure what the exact concern is. You may be taking issue with the hook simply saying "two" (Tallboys hit) while the cite states "at least two Tallboys" (this is what I was referring to as "the count" in the post above). Is that your concern? Please, be as specific as you possibly can! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
What seems to be needed is entirely in the area of inline source citations:
  1. In the Development section, SABS subsection: the second and third paragraphs each need at least one inline citation.
  2. Operational use subsection, final paragraph: this is where the hook citation is (ref 24). "Two bombs from 617 hit the Tirpitz" is cited, but it does not also say that these were Tallboys or that they hit the deck of the ship, both assertions in the hook. If the article doesn't say it, the hook can't even if the source does, and while the source says "hit by at least two Tallboys" it also doesn't say "deck". Both article and hook need revising to reconcile these details.
  3. Description section, Range Unit subsection: the fourth paragraph doesn't actually need a citation, since it's referring back to the three calculations earlier, but I think it would be better to combine it with the next paragraph anyway (the first of the two remaining calculations).
  4. Using the SABS section: the opening paragraph does not need an inline source citation, as it is an introduction for subsections that are properly cited.
If you have any further questions, please ask and I'll do my best to answer. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How's this (you'll have to scroll up to see the text). Read Bobby Knight's recounting of the bomb patterns of the 617 (the 9th was following), with three bombs hitting the ship's deck. At the top of the same page is a clear statement about "all 617's eighteen Tallboys were gone". Does that do it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't read it—I'm not able to see the pages when I click on the link you've supplied, and it doesn't offer me a search box—but the quotes look good, and the book is about the Tirpitz. Now to get that sourced material into the article itself, along with the other items mentioned above... BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Added. Now what are the other items? Do you mean inlines? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You had not, so far as I could tell, completed the items numbered 1 through 4 above, though technically 3 is only a recommendation, and 4 doesn't require any action on your part. All you've added is a source; all of number 1 and the bulk of number 2 remain to be done. Please let me know when they're ready. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The hook phrase "on her deck" still is not made in the article when it talks about the bombing and must be, and the Tallboys should be specifically mentioned in that context as well. Without it—fully addressing number 2 in the list above—the hook you've given is as dead in the water as the Tirpitz was. You're welcome to introduce a new hook with alternate wording that doesn't mention the deck or the Tallboys, though it seems a less useful solution. I'd also still like to see those two paragraphs cited as noted in number 1 above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hook fact still not in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Stabilized_Automatic_Bomb_Sight&oldid=829320626"