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) 05:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Text and sources supporting hook found in the Race with the Emilie section. (Nomination submitted on Sept. 6 Calif. time)
Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 00:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC).
Article length and date are OK, hook length is OK, QPQ is still pending. There are considerable verification and sourcing problems in the article that need to be addressed.
First, Per Rule 3 of WP:DYKRULES, the sentence in the article supporting the hook fact must have a citation in that sentence. The sentence in the article, that supports the hook, "The two vessels were less than fifty feet apart, when Bailey, realizing he was about to fall behind, ordered the pilot, William Massie, to intentionally put his rudder to port, and plunge the bow of his boat into the Emilie close to her boilers", does not have a citation in it.
Second, the source cited at the end of the paragraph to support that sentence, Chittenden, 1903, Volume II, p. 290, contradicts what the above sentence says. The source says that the pilot of Spread Eagle decided to ram Emilie, and mentions nothing about the pilot being ordered to do so by captain Bailey. Similarly, the source cited in the nomination, O'Neil p. 30 says the same thing: "As the steamers bore down on their chosen courses, Spread Eagles pilot suddenly saw that the shorter route ahead of Emilie was indeed navigable. Rather than let the rival vessel take the lead, he threw the wheel over and rammed Spread Eagles bow into Emilie, deliberately trying to disable her." Again, nothing here about the pilot being ordered to ram Emilie.
Third, one of the references at the end of the paragraph in question, ref no 5, is "Chittenden, 1905, Vol. II, p. 778". Both volumes of Chittenden listed as sources were published in 1903, not 1905. Moreover, volume 2 does not have page 778.
Fourth, the article several times mentions William Massie being the pilot of Spread Eagle during the race with Emilie. The source cited, Chittenden, 1905, Vol. II, does not mention the name of William Massie at all, anywhere in the book. What's more, p. 290 of Chittenden, 1905, Vol. II refers to Bailey as the pilot of Spread Eagle: "He instatly called to Bailey, the pilot of the Spread Eagle, to stop his engines ..."
Fifth, the last paragraph of the article says that, following Bailey's license being suspended, "Massie was subsequently made the new captain of the Spread Eagle." The only source cited in this paragraph, at the end of the paragraph, is Chittenden, 1903, Volume II, pp. 290–291. However, as noted above, this source mentions nothing at all about Massie, and does not say that he was made captain of Spread Eagle.
Sixth, the race with Emilie section says "... with the Spread Eagle, commanded by Captain Robert E. Bailey". The source cited, Chittenden, 1903, Volume II, only mentions the last name of the pilot (not captain) of Spread Eagle, as Bailey. It is unclear, and currently unsupported by the sources cited, where the "Robert E." part came from.
Seventh, given these problems, the article (particularly the Race with the Emilie section) needs a lot more citations, to make certain that every fact mentioned there is explicitly supported by some source, and that no WP:V and WP:OR issues remain.
Please address these problems. After that is done, I will take another close look at the article to check if there are any other issues. Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nsk92: Thanks for your review. Obviously there are issues that need tending to. I've been pressed for time and sort of jumped the gun and submitted the article for DYK anyways, so as not to exceed the seven day limit. Right now my computer at home is having issues, so I'm at the public library on one of their rigs. I have sources for Massie, becoming captain. Yes, Chittenden, 1903, didn't mention Massie -- other sources do. Also, Chittenden, 1905, wasn't in the Sources section when I made the nomination. It's a different title, and year (1905) by Chittenden. This has been added. Here are sources for Massie:
I added citations/sources for sentences supporting hook, and for Massie.. Don't know when I'll have my computer up to speed again, or when I'll be able to get back here at the library, so if you don't hear from me in a few days and think it's necessary, you can cancel the nomination. I can always shoot for a good article and submit a DYK at that time. Sorry for this rush job. Will try to get back to business here at DYK asap. ' Best, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Ok, thanks. I am in no rush. Technically, the nomination was submitted on time. I am willing to wait until you sort out the sourcing and citation problems, assuming it takes weeks rather than months. Note that the key hook supporting sentence "The two vessels were less than fifty feet apart, when Bailey,..." still does not have a citation at the end of the sentence. My main problem here is that various sources used in the article contradict each other regarding key details (who was the captain/pilot, who gave the order, etc). E.g. the second source you cite above[1] gives yet another version regarding Spread Eagle:"Captain and pilots were Captain "Bill" (William Rodney Massie)". Somehow these issues need to be reconciled, particularly in terms of which sources are cited and how, if the article is to go to the main page. Nsk92 (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nsk92: - I'm still here -- caught me just as I was about to log off. Thanks for your prompt reply. The article only says that Massie became captain after Bailey lost his license. Before that Bailey was captain. Yes, steamboats.org in the opening prgh refers to Massie as a steamboat captain in a general sense, but he wasn't captain on the Spread Eagle until Bailey got the boot, as covered by the Bismark Tribune source. In any event, I will be happy to tend to any remaining issues asap. My computer time limit here is almost up. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: OK, thanks. I have added a bunch of cn tags, primarily to clarify which sources are used to support which statements. I'll wait for the next update. Nsk92 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nsk92: Okay, I've added the cites, per our discussion. I also added some other context, with citations and sources. I'm at the library again, and I'll be here for another hour and a half. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: OK, thanks. I have just gotten home and took a look at the new version. There are a few technical glitches: Several footnotes seem to be malformatted and end in extraneous ]]. There is also a sentence in the middle of Race with Emilie section where Bailey is misspelled as Baily. ("passed in what Baily had assumed was an impassable channel"). The main problem however, that several citations are now used in a contradictory way. For example, the sentence "... departed Saint Louis with the Spread Eagle, commanded by Captain Robert E. Bailey, and piloted by William Massie" is cited to both Chittenden, 1903, Volume II and to Eriksmoen, Bismark Tribune. The problem is that Chittenden actually say that on p. 290 that Spread Eagle was piloted by Bailey and does not mention Massie at all. You can't use Chittenden as a source for this sentence since Chittenden explicitly contradicts a part of what the sentence says. Similarly, the sentence "... when Bailey, realizing he was about to be out-manuvered and fall behind, ordered the pilot, William Massie, to intentionally put his rudder to port, and plunge the bow of his boat into the Emilie close to her boilers" now is cited both to Chittenden and Eriksmoen. However, again, Chittenden contradicts what this sentence says since Chittenden writes, also on p. 290 that it was the pilot (Bailey) of the Spread Eagle who decided to ram Emilie, and mentions nothing about him being ordered to do so by anyone. So you can't use Chittenden as a source for this sentence. There are a couple other instances, later in the text, when Chittenden and Eriksmoen are used alternatingly as sources in a problematic matter. Since the accounts of Chittenden and Eriksmoen are inconsistent with each other in several crucial details, I think you have to pick one of these sources for most of the story, stick with it and write an account consistent with that source, instead of trying to interweave two contradictory accounts. And either not use the other source at all or use it for a disjoint part of the narrative. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nsk92: By the good grace of my next door neighbor I have use of her spare lap-top until I get my rig (a Windows problem, typically) in order. I checked the footnotes, and found no bracket issues. All footnotes end with a pair of right curly brackets, }} and function correctly, with no red error tags anywhere. There are some [[links]] enclosed in the footnotes. I also removed two of the Chittenden (1903, v.II) citations in the sentences you referred to. However, unless there is a clear inconsistency between this and any other given source, I see no need to remove the citation/source anywhere else. This is not the first time I've seen varying accounts regarding certain points among the sources, and is not really a reason to abandon the source entirely. For all we know the Bismark Tribune source may be in error, not Chittenden. In any case, if there are other issues still lingering, please let me know and I will be happy to address them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: OK, thanks. I fixed up the errant brackets myself [2], fixed up a few typos and minor grammar issues, and added an extra category. Right now the page is listed only in two categories, and it'd be nice if you could add 1-2 more. The sentence " ... he had been trying to get the inspector to reinstate him, but that he would not do it ..." has too many pronouns and too few nouns and is hard to unparse. Please replace some of "he/him" by nouns, especially "he" in "he would not do it". I added one more cn tag, to clarify which source is being used there. For the most part, the use of sources looks OK now, and there are no direct contradictions in specific uses of citations (in fact, the entire account now looks basically consistent with Eriksmoen). One other sourcing issue did come up. The sentence "The danger of a serious wreck was imminent" now has three citations, the last of which is footnote 8, to Steamboats.org. However this source does not support this sentence. The only thing that the source says about the ramming of Emilie is: "raced EMILIE on Upper Missouri from moorings near Ft. Berthold in Dakota Territory. Rammed EMILLIE'S bow to keep her from winning. Lost by 4 days". No details here and nothing about the danger being imminent from any specific action at any specific moment. Please remove this citation from the sentence in question. Also, If you do want to use a citation to steamboats.org for a different sentence, please add some additional details to the reference when it is cited, such as the title of the page at steamboats.org ("Captain William Rodney Massie") and the retrieved date. Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I removed and added citations accordingly and tended to the grammar in question, that was using too many pronouns. I also added the title to the citation that refers to the essay at steamboats.org. Also added a couple of more categories. The cite web template for steamboats.org already has a retrieval date (Sept.9, 2019) Re: details about the ramming of Emilie by Spread Eagle. The article says this occurred close to Emilie's boilers. The sources offer no further details about the danger. Also, the statement about ramming Emilie's bow to keep her from winning is sort of self explanatory, and, imo, is an action that doesn't need further explanation, which the sources don't offer either. If you can find any that I've overlooked I'd be happy to include them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Very good, thanks. I took another read through the article, and everything looks in order now. I will approve the nomination once your QPQ is completed. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. — @Nsk92: Many thanks for your review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: OK, very good, I am approving the nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Article length and date are OK, hook length is OK, QPQ is still pending. There are considerable verification and sourcing problems in the article that need to be addressed.
Done. — @Nsk92: Many thanks for your review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: OK, very good, I am approving the nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Approving the original hook. Nsk92 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)