Template:Did you know nominations/Proposals for concerted operation among the powers at war with the piratical States of Barbary


 * 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) 06:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator per WT:DYK

Proposals for concerted operation among the powers at war with the piratical States of Barbary

 * ... that, in 1800, Sweden and Denmark proposed raising a joint naval force with the United States to patrol the Mediterranean Sea?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Banks & Steelz & Template:Did you know nominations/Annette Lyon
 * Comment: Due to a decision in ANI, this nomination should be double-reviewed.

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 01:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review. Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 02:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks all good to me. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 08:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg It doesn't look all good to me. There's nothing in this article about Spain & Denmark proposing a joint force in 1800. There is a mention of Sweden & Denmark making such a proposal, but there is no immediate citation, only one at the end of the section two sentences later. Additionally the reviewer hasn't done a proper full review. Bcp67 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was watching the news about the Jesus Gamez trade to Newcastle when I wrote this and it came out "Spain" instead of "Sweden." Fixed. LavaBaron (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * On it. Symbol possible vote.svg Timely; long enough (~2.5k elig. chars.); the hook's cite is behind a jstor paywall but taken on good faith; no copyvio issues; QPQ done... but you need a new hook. The article being linked is about Jefferson's proposal, which came decades before the Dano-Swedish idea being mentioned by the hook. May I suggest something involving Jefferson, the pirates, or identic notes (which is interesting to discover the name for)? In the alternative, you could restructure the article and move it to something focused on the Dano-Swedish proposal. — Llywelyn II   13:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you want me to rewrite the article so it focuses on the hook? Is this type of suggestion within the bailiwick of DYK review? In any case, you've made 45-percent of the total edit lines to the article so, unfortunately, aren't eligible to review it. While I appreciate your effort, we should probably make sure this is done by-the-book given the recent cultural preference for letter-of-the-law at DYK. Gracias! LavaBaron (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I know it's not necessary but with something this terse that's in the public domain, it'd be nice to copy the text over to Wikisource and link it. Also, the article is in the wrong place, but I can fix that. — Llywelyn II   13:50, 14 July 2016


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Previous secondary reviewer was an active editor on article. Out of a preponderance of caution, an uninvolved secondary reviewer is needed. LavaBaron (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fine to get a third opinion and give me an editing credit (you haven't done that so far but certainly aren't just trying to game the rules to avoid my comments), but no regardless of any of that nonsense you can't have a hook completely divorced from the of the article. You can rewrite the hook or the article. Obviously the hook is easier. —  Llywelyn II   13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No, actually we can have any hook we want as long as it's cited in the article and is interesting. There are no WP:SCOPE requirements in the reviewing guidelines. Thanks for offering an interesting perspective, though. Feel free to give yourself whatever credit you like, on my behalf and with my blessings. In the meantime, uninvolved reviewer needed. LavaBaron (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg It'd be nice if another reviewer or admin could point this out to you so you stop taking it personally but, no, the article and the hook have to abide by Wikipedia policy. One of those is : you can't say that your article is about a Dano-Swedish naval alliance and link to an article on an entirely separate American diplomatic note decades earlier. You're welcome to come up with some other hooks or just take a pass on this one. As is, you're failing the "within policy" aspect of the review. Hell, if I'm being treated as a creator for having cleaned up the article, I don't mind coming up with alternative hooks on my own. I was just giving you a chance to come up with something else you were interested in or, if the Dano-Swedish alliance really is the only interesting part for you, to write an article on that. — Llywelyn II   04:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Second review: Agree with User:LlywelynII. The hook fact has nothing to do with the linked article. The joint naval force being proposed in the hook happened in 1800; the article is about a different naval blockade proposed in 1786. If you said "... that after the demise of Jefferson's proposal, Denmark and Sweden proposed a different idea", that would be appropriate. I'm sure you can find another hook here. And the title is really long; isn't there a WP:COMMONNAME for this note?
 * It's not commonly discussed enough to have a . The full text of Jefferson's note is given under "Jefferson’s Proposed Concert of Powers against the Barbary States" but personally I feel like we should leave it at its formal original title rather than any random gloss of its content. We can redirect from the other, though. — Llywelyn II   00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, new enough, long enough, adequately referenced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen in online sources. 2 QPQs done. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed an Alt2 under protest. LavaBaron (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT2: "... that after the rejection of the proposals for concerted operation among the powers at war with the piratical States of Barbary, Denmark and Sweden proposed a military alliance with the United States"?
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Thank you. Though I suggested the direction, you filled in the blanks, so I'm going ahead and approving this. Offline ALT2 ref AGF and cited inline. ALT2 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg With respect and thanks for your time, Yoninah, this hook is not supported by the source or the running text. The proposal was never rejected: it was popular internationally and died in committee in the US. As a side point, the link could use a terser gloss that mentions Jefferson somewhere or should be formatted and capitalized as a title. @LavaBaron, thank you for your work here and elsewhere expanding articles. I don't know why you have to make this so difficult: all you need to do is offer a hook about the article being promoted that is verifiable through its citations. The article itself is fine. — Llywelyn II   00:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, and it just goes to show that I shouldn't okay a hook that I had anything to do with, even as a hint. Do you have another hook suggestion? I added you to the creation credits. Yoninah (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)