Talk:Palmwood shipwreck

Creating in article space to invite in those more expert
I know little about the terminology surrounding shipwrecks and diving, please anyone who knows this stuff feel free to contribute or correct my errors! Valereee (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Great topic, which I found fascinating. As usual, DYK has been rushed to "press" because of the ridiculous rule that "newness" of editing is required. (Heck if this page had been around for 10 years with very little change in the past year, and someone pointed me to it, I would have found it very worthwhile as a DYK about something I did not know.)
 * Anyway, my specific complaint is that the hook was badly written: "may be the only such items in existence". The vague weasel "such" should have been cut, changing to something like "only remaining items of their kind" which fits the text you wrote.
 * Calling the items "unique" in the lede seems to contradict the body of the page, where the silk dress is described as:
 * "It is typical of dresses of the 1620s to 1630s in Western Europe and is believed to be an everyday dress."
 * It sounds like that dress wasn't unique, not even "unusual". A better adjective would be "rare" which fits the fact that nothing similar has been found. Also "in existence" sounds like hype. The word "extant" is more accurate in regard to "remaining". Martindo (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, @Martindo, thanks for the input! Both dresses are called "unique" by experts, quoted and attributed in the sections. We could put it in quotes in the lead, too, but I thought because that would need attribution there, too, it would be overwordy. But YMMV, I don't have a strong opinion on it. Edit at will.
 * Yes, that would have been a better wording I think! I did tag a lot of wikiprojects trying to find someone who was interested.
 * I don't think it's so much DYK's 7-day rule as it is that I nominated it the same day I created it (I do that to make sure I don't forget), a reviewer found it interesting enough that it was reviewed very quickly, a promoter found it unusual enough that it got promoted very quickly, and we're currently on 2-a-days. That means it was only 8 days between creation and appearance. The more common timeline between is at least 4-6 weeks. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and re: not even "unusual" -- you mean because it's an everyday dress? An example of an everyday dress is unusual because much of what we know of clothing of the time comes from portraits; women typically didn't wear their everyday dresses when posing for a portrait but instead the most expensive and currently fashionable dress they owned. And non-portrait renderings of women at the time tended to show them in some degree of nudity or as biblical saints or martyrs or both. :) There apparently aren't a lot of detailed paintings of upper-class women in everyday dresses. Valereee (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Great point about "everyday" as an example of "herstory" (sadly a neglected field of study once again, as media focus on finding "super-heroes" eveywhere).
 * I've found ambiguous writing and some outright erros in other DYK in recent months and look askance at the whole project. IMO it's a serious mistake to *require* recency of edit because it reduces scrutiny/polishing time.
 * The point of DYK is that the WP entry is something people usually don't think of. I bet there are thousands of entries that would qualify, many of which have not received "significant edits" in the past year, let alone the past week.Martindo (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally. Millions of articles could be taken to GA or expanded 5x. Valereee (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Guardian article
Hey, @Abductive! The reason I'd written it that way was because the Guardian article is from 2016 and the Kaap Skil's info is what's currently on their website. I think it's possible the theories are in flux, so I wanted to make clear it was a 2016 theory that it was likely a 12-ship fleet from Dover etc. Valereee (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written as an encyclopedia, not as a newspaper article, as explained in the WP:NOTNEWS policy, which states that, among other things, Wikipedia is not written in news style. Newspapers are scrupulous about mentioning what media source published something first. Wikipedia has the refs system to give such attribution, and WP:INTEXT states, It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I know that, lol. My point is that it was a theory in 2016 as reported by a newspaper. The current theory, as reported by a museum, is different and may mean that theory has been debunked. I made a slight change yesterday to fix it, but I don't actually think "It has been proposed" is a great change, as it's just begging for a "by whom" tag. Valereee (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Guardian proposed it. Somebody they interviewed? Abductive  (reasoning) 15:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * An early theory by Nadine Akkerman? Valereee (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)