Template:Did you know nominations/Fanning Raid


 * 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator.

Fanning Raid

 * ... that the Fanning Raid was a successful World War I sabotage operation?

5x expanded by Catlemur (talk). Self nominated at 11:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC).


 * , this template was posted in two places, under August 26, and under the special holding area for September 7. Since it has not yet been reviewed, I removed the listing under September 7. The raid happened exactly 100 years ago on September 7, 1914. I will place a note on WT:DYK so this gets attention. — Maile  (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg While this is indeed 5x expanded, it doesn't meet the minimum length for all DYK nominations, 1500 prose characters. (It contains 1257 prose characters, which is well shy of the required minimum.) The article needs to be copyedited: it mostly consists of very short sentences, a number of which are sentence fragments. There is also some very close paraphrasing, which is not allowed: for example, the article reads "destroy the cable station. Cutting the cable and destroying a cache of spare instruments", while the source reads "wrecked the cable station, cut the cable and destroyed a cache of spare instruments". The sourcing is also an issue: from what I can tell, the fanning-island.com site (which was the closely paraphrased one above) is a commercial website which features boat charters and tours; the fact that sections of information are repeated on the history page casts strong doubt that this can be considered a reliable source. The Australian newspaper report appears fine. I'm not as sure about the Canadian source; if it were the museum itself, I'd feel better about it, but this is a foundation related to the museum somehow, and the formatting of the PDF (as well as failing to explain the bona fides of the author) leave me a bit leery. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I give up,I will rather focus on my other DYK submition.Thanks for the review though. Catlemur (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)