Template:Did you know nominations/Froberg mutiny


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Froberg mutiny

 * ... that in the Froberg mutiny, Greek and Albanian mutineers raised the Russian ensign on the captured Fort Ricasoli?
 * ALT1:... that the Froberg mutiny ended after mutineers blew up Fort Ricasoli's gunpowder magazine?

Created by Xwejnusgozo (talk). Self nominated at 23:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Nice start, but it fails to cite sources with inline citations.  I'll contact you on your talk page to see if you can address this. Viriditas (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Something cited to the timesofmalta.com reference, rather than a book, would make it easier for us to verify. Subjectively, IMHO a more interesting hook would be the five mutineers forced by the British to hang five other mutineers, or that the fort is threatened by coastal erosion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, and long enough, but the referencing needs a lot of work. Many long paragraphs have no cites whatsoever and there is close paraphrasing. A hook such as ALT2: ... that the Froberg mutiny has been considered as the most serious mutiny during the Napoleonic Wars? --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  23:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I was going to add some inline citations but noticed structural similarities between this and the Times of Malta article. As Jakob has said, there is quite a bit of close paraphrasing - to the point where Earwig is suggesting a 75.1% possiblity. A couple of examples:
 * Source: Count Froberg was granted a Letter of Service by Britain’s Secretary at War to raise a regiment in Germany for service in Malta.
 * Article: Count Froberg and was granted a letter of service by the British Secretary at War to raise a regiment for service in Malta.
 * Source: The first five of the condemned were hanged by five others, who were themselves hanged in turn by the next five.
 * Article: The first five were hanged by five others, who were themselves hanged by another five.
 * Unfortunately, the nominator has not responded to any notices about this nom so marking for closure. Fuebaey (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding, I had almost forgotten about this nomination. I did not copy the TOM source, although I did base the layout of this article mainly on it (it's the most detailed source about the mutiny that I know of). Since both the source and the article are about the same event, it is inevitable that some sentences end up similar or almost identical. If I have time, I can try to rewrite the article or parts of it.
 * This is a rather obscure event, and unfortunately there seem to be very few sources available (at least online). --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, , I didn't read the source, and with complete ignorance attempted to tweak/revise/etc. the article. Please check to see if it passes muster now--and feel free to fix any moronities I might have introduced. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , please have a look and see if this can be ticked off and sent on its way--it's clogging up the page., perhaps you can weigh in as well: you have some experience here. ;) Drmies (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Drmies, given your caveat above, I would absolutely want Xwejnusgozo to confirm that your changes are fine. I'm also going to ask Nikkimaria to take a look regarding close paraphrasing issues. After that, a new reviewer should come in and take a look: so far, I only see "new enough and long enough", which does not a full review make. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding: I see that Nikkimaria has already been asked on her talk page, and replied: I see some places in need of copyediting, some where the sourcing doesn't quite line up with the content (eg. footnote 4 doesn't support its paragraph, footnote 2 is the correct source), and some minor close paraphrasing, but nothing on the level of copyvio at this point. So these should be addressed before the new reviewer is called in. (I don't have time myself; maybe Epeefleche will.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The changes made by Drmies look OK to me. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed footnote 4, it should be OK now. I don't know exactly what to change re the copyediting and close paraphrasing, could someone else arrange these please? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe it has taken so long; possibly there is a curse on this nomination that nobody has told me about; I'll let you know if I'm chased by ghostly mutineers later. Length, copyvio, neutrality are fine now; age: ha! (yes, fine at the time); QPQ doesn't seem necessary. Either hook is OK and (now) cited. You could use for pictured if the prep this goes into is lacking a decent article for the pictured slot. Anyway: good to go. Belle (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed to make sure the article now meets DYK standards; I've done some copyediting and work on the close paraphrasing, and Nikkimaria says it's "not bad at this point", so I'm hoping the article is finally there. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)