Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Vestal (J215)

Sourcing issues

HMS Vestal (J215)

 * ... that HMS Vestal (J215) (pictured) was the last British Royal Navy ship sunk in the Second World War?


 * Created/expanded by Matty.007 (talk). Nominated at 14:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Problem: article too short, less than 650B, DYK criteria at 1500B. New enough=yes.  Not a copy vio=yes.  Interesting and short hook, although I think there should be at least one other wikilink (easy fix).    78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have fixed this now, article at around 1700B. Mat  ty  .  007  18:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, much better. Nice expansion, it has the information I was hoping to find when I first read the article.  I'll try to review later tonight, if someone else doesn't get to it first.   78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to follow up reference 12, which is simply "The Discovery of the HMS Vestal (Pdf)". --LukeSurlt c 19:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reference 11 is a post on the "Thai Visa Forum", which I would not consider a reliable source. --LukeSurlt c 19:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a link to the page that got me onto the PDF, but I was not allowed to save it, being told it was a Spam source, or something to that effect... Mat  ty  .  007  19:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks to whoever fixed it!  Mat  ty  .  007  19:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Any reference to the Thai Visa Forum should be replaced because it is not a reliable source. Sources are from a neutral reliable third party. Examples include scolarly articles (Google Scholar is great for this), books (which some can be found on Google Books), and news organizations. Any sites with content from the users cannot be used which includes blogs, Facebook, and forums. It is a great article otherwise. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What I think I can deduce is that the vessel sustained critical damage and 20 casualties in the kamikaze attack, the remaining crew evacuated and the ship was scuttled. However some parts of the article read as if the attack directly sunk the ship with 20 hands aboard. This needs to be clarified. --LukeSurlt c 19:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tried to fix the clarity a little... Mat  ty  .  007  19:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that it looks fine, but I will let LukeSurl decide as he originally brought up the issue. SL93 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the unreferenced content which originally had the unreliable source still needs to be referenced. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now fixed that. Mat  ty  .  007  20:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This article has a big referencing problem. I wish that the issue was simply only a few unreliable sources, but it isn't. I'm not sure of how World Naval Ships is reliable along with Thai Wreck Dive and Happy Divers. Wreck Site is completely submitted by users. Warships of World War II's owner information at the bottom shows that the site is self-published. Minesweepers is an old website that has no information about the website itself. Rebreather World is a forum. Paxman History is self-published. The only website that is obviously reliable is navy-history.net because it is working with the help of a museum. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So I'm confused. The story in this source says the vessel sunk (with 20 casualties) immediately after the Japanese attack, but other sources suggest the vessel was scuttled by the crew after the attack to prevent it falling into enemy hands. Which story is correct? --LukeSurlt c 20:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking over the Thai Wreck Driver's About page makes me think that the site is no better than a personal website. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I wouldn't trust happydivers.cz much either. Military history avails itself to better documentation than this, surely we can do better here. LukeSurlt c 20:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that I could find documentation that is better than the sources provided, but I don't see why I can't. I thought something like this would have better coverage although maybe it is just offline somewhere. SL93 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In full agreement with you SL93. I think we've done what we can with the sources we've got, and I commend Matty.007 for his efforts, but I cannot recommend this for DYK posting as the sources are of low quality. --LukeSurlt c 20:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Article has a "reliable sources" template on it; problems with reliability have been noted above, and no changes have been made in the past ten days to improve the sourcing. As such, the article does not have the quality sources needed for a main page appearance. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)