Template:Did you know nominations/Noel Hilliam

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 SL93 talk 00:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Noel Hilliam

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that shipwreck hunter Noel Hilliam claimed to find a sunken U-Boat off the coast of New Zealand?

• Source: In 2008 The Underwater Heritage Group (of which Noel Hilliam was vice-president) announced that they had discovered a German U-boat off the Kaipara Coast. Hilliam claimed the submarine had been 'observed seven times' and three divers had been to it – however, no photographs exist and it has not since been seen.

• Reviewed:

Moved to mainspace by Petersmeter (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Petersmeter (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC).

• I'll give this a review. Schwede66 08:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Some content issues first. The date and place of birth are unreferenced, and you either need to reference those or remove the info. There is an unreferenced section (same thing; either reference it or remove the info). Wikipedia use quotation marks (") rather than apostrophes ('); please change this throughout the article. I've fixed up numerous stylistic issues myself. Now to the DYK criteria. The article was new in mainspace when it was nominated. It's long enough. Apart from the parts listed above, it's suitably referenced. Hilliam was a controversial chap, but I'm happy that it's written in a neutral way. Earwig is clean; all it finds are direct quotes. This appears to be the nominator's second DYK nomination, hence a QPQ is not required. The grammar of the hook is off; it would need to be "claimed to have found". The hook fact itself is referenced. Once the above issues are sorted, this is good to go. Schwede66 09:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks for your help with this article Schwede66 - I think I have corrected all the quotation marks, added references for the unreferenced section and added a reference for birth place/date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmeter (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• You will find that Geni.com is not a reliable source; it's listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I suggest you have a look on PapersPast whether you can find a birth notice in one of the local papers. Schwede66 16:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks - I have trawled through papers past and online am unable to find any other references. So have removed the date and location of birth. Petersmeter (talk)

• Good to go. Schwede66 23:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Petersmeter and Schwede66: I've added a tag for OR to the "Doubt" section: for example, his alleged reliance on anonymous "experts" is not verified by a source, and the examples provided don't seem to be linked in RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Petersmeter: Please respond to the above concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't believe it is OR - it is just bringing all the examples with accompanying quotes into one section. We're dealing with someone who did have a history of being slightly controversial and I think that section is important to maintain the balance of the article. I have included a source for the claim, and made sure each of the examples have sources. But I also accept that I haven't been editing on Wikipedia too long so if you'd rather just let the DYK drop that is also fine. Any thoughts on the above please @Schwede66: Petersmeter (talk)

You'd have to convince AirshipJungleman29 that the tag can now be removed. You've done a lot more work on that section, adding quite a number of references, and there's every chance that the tag will go. If it does get removed, the DYK can proceed. Schwede66 08:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article, incorporating material from the unnecessary "doubt" section, which anyway mostly duplicated other sections, into the rest of the article. There was also definitely still incorrect OR in the article, such as the assertion that an "Oxford-educated researcher" was unknown, when in reality the source named him as Winston Cowie three sentences into the article. That should now be resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

References