Template:Did you know nominations/Garrison Point Fort

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 Victuallers (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Garrison Point Fort edit

(

)

... that Garrison Point Fort in Sheerness, Kent, is a rare example of a two-tiered casemated sea battery of the 1860s?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bothmer Castle

5x expanded by Prioryman (talk). Self-nominated at 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

~~[[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]]~~

Matters that are good to go: long enough and new enough relative to the date of this nomination. Checks for copyvio reveals no problems (e.g. [1]), QPQ review performed, interesting hook, all non-lead paragraphs have at least one inline citation.

The only matter that needs to be addressed is that the content of the hook ~~does not appear to be~~ (is not backed by) a reliable source in the article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on what the review says, North America1000, the X icon is incorrectly used. It is meant only for nominations that are unfixable or require very extensive work. Please use a more appropriate icon in future, like the slash or question mark, for articles that need some fixing, but are not in dire straits. The DYK reviewing guide has a more detailed explanation on what the icons mean. Thank you for your reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

All right. I modified my comment above. Content of the hook is not presently verified in the article. Hopefully this minor matter can be addressed so this can move forward. This has been sitting for over a month. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I've added a supplementary reference which should resolve this. Prioryman (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000:, please don't forget you need to finish your review. Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In the hook, it states that this two-tiered casemated fort is a rare occurrence. In the lead of the article, it states that this is an unusual occurrence. It does not state anywhere else in the article that the occurrence is rare or unusual. So, to move forward, we need an inline citation to a reliable source at the end of the sentence that states that this is unusual, or copy editing to document its rarity, backed with a reliable source at the end of the sentence (both as per point #3 of WP:WIADYK). If the former is possible, I propose the following ALT1 below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
ALT1 ... ~~that Garrison Point Fort in Sheerness, Kent, is an example of an unusual two-tiered casemated sea battery of the 1860s?~~

Thanks but no. The cited source says specifically that the fort is a rare two-tiered casemated sea battery of the 1860s. That is exactly what the hook says. Point #3 of WP:WIADYK says "The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article", which is fully satisfied here. I've just changed the word "unusual" to "rare" in the lead, matching the source exactly (though I note that "unusual" is a synonym for "rare" [2] so this change isn't strictly necessary). I'm afraid your proposed hook is misleading in that it is the type of the fort, not the specific building itself, that is unusual. Prioryman (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

. I struck ALT1 above. The inline citation needs to be at the end of the sentence that states content of the hook, per point #3 of WP:WIADYK. There is presently no source there, although there is one at the end of the following sentence. Is this the source being used to verify content of the hook? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I've moved the citation to the spot you indicated to make this clearer. Prioryman (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Now good to go, per all of the above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)