Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Cressy (1899)

The following discussion 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 Victuallers (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

HMS Cressy (1899)

(

)

... that when HMS Cressey (pictured) was sunk, 560 men were killed?

Comment: I know this is a tad outside 5 days, I was asking Sturmvogel, and it is a shame to miss new GAs

Improved to Good Article status by Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Nominated by Matty.007 (talk) at 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

hook cited to offline source....agree on getting it through as it is encyclopedic and notable...and interesting. good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask what is going on here? The article was listed as a Good Article on March 1, 2014—over two days after Matty.007 nominated it, and over ten hours after Cas Liber passed it. I'd like to hear from both the nominator and the reviewer on why they thought their part in this was properly/accurately done. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Weird - I saw the "Improved to Good Article status" and checked the hook...I could have sworn the colour of the article title was GA green but it must have been just B-class green. Weird...sorry 'bout that. Size irrelevant - written in neutral tone and amply supplied with inline refs. hook cited. will check another fours refs for paraphrasing and/or accuracy. hang on. damn - just about all offline. Will drop a note on the talk page about FN 21. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I have no idea how I did that. I think I was on Sturmvogel's talk page, in this section, and just mis-saw the icon. Sorry about that, I must be more careful. Thanks for catching it, best, Mat ty.007 11:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that Cas Liber has checked the article, can the tick be restored Blue Moonset? Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Matty.007, that has to wait until the check Cas Liber wanted to do re FN 21 is completed, whatever it is, and he posts the conclusion here along with whatever tick is appropriate. There's no urgent rush that I can see. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure it didn't go stale. I'm afraid that I have no idea what FN 21 is, so I can't help. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a big deal - mainly just that there is other info in the source that would be good to add. It is a bit tangential to the sentence but I presume the other footnote has material that complements it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the approval tick. I agree with Casliber's comments about the content cited in footnote 21, but those comments do not in any way prevent this hook from being used in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)