Template:Did you know nominations/Aero-engined car


 * 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 Fuebaey (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Aero-engined car

 * ... that a 1910 aero-engined car was built with a Fiat production chassis and a 28.4 l airship engine?
 * ALT1:... that the aero-engined car "Babs" (pictured) crashed at Pendine, Wales in 1927 and was buried under the sand before being excavated in 1969 and ultimately restored to working order by 1985?
 * ALT2:... that in 1964, the aero-engined car Wingfoot Express was driven to a world-record speed of 413 mph by Tom Green, who had never before driven over 130 mph?
 * Reviewed: Stained glass in Liverpool Cathedral, Operation Hardnose, Hibutsu, Dahlander pole changing motor, and SS Republic (1871)

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self nominated at 04:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC).


 * DYK checklist template


 * Thanks very much for the review, Georgejdorner. I really appreciate it, especially considering the length of this article.
 * Comment: The first hook is cited in the Murphy article (footnote 1), which is the reference upon which that whole paragraph draws from. I've been reading a lot of featured articles recently, and I've noticed that in those articles if multiple sentences within the same paragraph share a citation, the footnote is typically given only once, after the text that draws from it. In this spirit, everything in this article is properly cited, with (in each and every case) the following footnote containing the relevant citation, even if it is at the end of a string of sentences or a paragraph (as it is in this specific case). I hope that this makes sense. I could go back and add multiple redundant citations to the article (ie, repeat the same footnote after every sentence in the paragraph about the airship-engined Fiat instead of just having one citation at the end of the paragraph that accounts for everything), but to use your words I believe that they would be "extraneous repetitive cites". Michael Barera (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: Don't worry about my use of multiple QPQ reviews. First of all, I'm consciously trying to help reduce the backlog, and secondly (as you have noticed) this was a massive article to review for DYK, so I threw in a couple more reviews to make up for the extra reviewing burden that this article caused. And, because of that, I really, really appreciate you taking the time and effort to review this article. Thanks again! Michael Barera (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are not dealing with Featured Articles. This is DYK land, where different is in. And yes, I have witnessed editors tacking in extraneous cites at the end of a sentence just to satisfy the DYK requirement for the hook. Silly, but there it is. I also dislike it. I avoid it.
 * The review stems from an old memory of watching an unsanctioned match drag race between jet-powered cars at Cecil County Dragaway in the 60s. One was Aarfons' Galloping Gourmet, a 150 mph (or so) garbage truck. The other looked like a jet fighter cockpit on four wheels. They ran at dusk. Spectacular!
 * PS. Just old memories. In WP, that equates to the dreaded Original Research. So don't quote me.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, George, that must have been a spectacular drag race to have witnessed!
 * Regarding my first choice hook and the citation issue, do you think I should add in an extra citation just to satisfy the DYK rules and then "revive" the hook, or should I just let the hook remain nixed while leaving the article as-is? At the end of the day, I stand by my work citing the article and, as I have said before, the next footnote (#1, for the Murphy article) does indeed reference the statement about the airship-engined Fiat. I'm fine either way, but I think I'm leaning toward the latter. Thanks again for your review and your interest in this new article! Michael Barera (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding an extra cite (and maybe even deleting it after the DYK runs) is a common ploy. I favor a more graceful approach of juggling the order of sentences within a paragraph so that the sentence containing the factoid ends up next to the cite.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, George. Based on the nature of the paragraph in question, I don't think that sentence juggling will work for me. I'll refrain from adding an extra redundant citation, so that means I won't contest your striking of my first hook choice. I'm still standing by the factual accuracy and proper citation of that sentence (and indeed the whole article), but that is probably clear already. That said, I think your review is complete and we're just waiting for promotion of the nomination to the DYK queue. Thanks again for the review and your perspective. I really do appreciate it! Michael Barera (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)