Talk:William George Carlile Kent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 97198 (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Commander Kent
Commander Kent

Created by Knightmare 3112 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - explained below
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Unknown
Overall: The article is lacking inline citations with the entirety of the "Later life" section uncited. I am not sure the hook reflects what is said in the source. The source says Bligh later said at trial that Kent 'should have blown down the town of Sydney about the ears of the Inhabitants' and that Kent was tried for "various actions contrary to or without Bligh's orders". To say that he was arrested for failing to blow up Sydney seems like a big jump from this. QPQ not done but I am not sure if this editor is under the 5 DYK credits to get away with this. The article is also in need of a good copy edit including tidying commas and tenses although this is not part of the DYK criteria. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir.copic added inline citations to the uncited sections. What you recommend would be a better hook? Knightmare 3112 (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There still seems to be big uncited sections in the text including an entire paragraph at the beginning of the "New South Wales" section. In terms of the hook, I just think that Kent was arrested, for failing to follow Bligh's order to "blow down the town of Sydney about the ears of the inhabitants" is not a true statement or at least is not reflected in the source. I suppose a more accurate hook would be something like:
ALT1 ... that New South Wales Governor William Bligh condemned William George Carlile Kent (pictured) for failing to destroy Sydney?
I might let another reviewer take a run at this as at the moment I don't think my concerns with the article have been alleviated. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir.copic all paragraphs have citations, as long as you've no more concerns can this be approved with ALT1

New reviewer requested for ALT1. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, driving by. I think ALT1 has some issues that make it a poor hook. It centers on the names of two men that most people unfamiliar with Australian history are unlikely to know the names of. I think the interesting part about the hook is that the subject cared so much about doing the right thing that instead of destroying Sydney as ordered, he worked to restore order, even to the point of getting arrested. So I would suggest something like this:

ALT1.5 ... that William George Carlile Kent was arrested for restoring government relationships in postcoup Sydney, Australia, because he didn't follow his boss's orders to destroy the town?

I'm not allowed to approve my own hook, so if something like that looks good to you, you can propose it and request another reviewer. Ruthgrace (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - explained above
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.

QPQ: Unknown
Overall: Looks like the issue with the citations pointed out by the previous reviewer have been fixed. Please mention a specific article for the QPQ requirement if you've fulfilled that. Ruthgrace (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of reviewing the article and nomination and while Ruthgrace beat me to replying, I generally agree with their assessment (however I would note that Knightmare 3112 only appears to have two prior DYKs and would thus be exempt from QPQ). In an effort to address the concerns about the hook I have also drafted the below ALT2 (please feel free to wordsmith/rework to improve if helpful). Thanks, Mifter (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3 ... that at the court-martial of William George Carlile Kent (pictured), his accuser charged that Kent "should have blown down the town of Sydney about the ears of the Inhabitants"? This could be more hooky since it is a teaser about who gave the orders. Other issues have been addressed. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightmare 3112: any comment on the above? Z1720 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give my vote to ALT2a -- Knightmare 3112 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthgrace and Mifter: either of you think this is ready to approve? Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to approve because I think the reason this is notable is because of its relevant to Sydney, and in ALT2a the mention of Sydney is hidden at the end. What do y'all think of this?
Ruthgrace (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reviewer, but I'd vote ALT 2a. In comparison, ALT 1.6 reads a bit too complicated (the restoring government relationships in postcoup part, specifically). While the potential destruction of Sydney definitely is the hooky part, I don't think having it at the end is detrimental. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthgrace: As the original reviewer, can you specify which hooks above are approved, and if you want, your preference? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like Alt 1.6 due to it being easier to read. My editing bias is that things should be easy to read on Wikipedia. As per the rules I'm not allowed to approve my own hook. Ruthgrace (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marking this for a new reviewer to assess the proposed hooks. Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 is more coherent to me. It appears all other outstanding issues on this nomination have been addressed, so I'm marking this as ready. Morgan695 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightmare 3112, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, and Ruthgrace:, pinging all who have suggested hooks above. The hook says that Bligh said the quote at the court marshal, but the article states Bligh's quote for the paragraph that talks about Kent's arrest. The source also gives the quote before talking about Kent's arrest, so I do not think it is verified that the quote was said during the court marshal. Can another source be provided that states that this was said at the trial, or maybe a reworded hook can be proposed? I do like the quote and would suggest using it. Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:, added a source about the court marshal, where the quote is actually mentioned, Kent was quoting Bligh, hope that helps Knightmare 3112 (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightmare 3112: I looked at the added source, and it says that the statement was made on July 29, 1808, a few months before Kent's court marshal. I don't think the hook can say that this quote was stated during the trial, and it should be removed from the proposed hook. Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Maybe change the hook slightly
  • I did some more checking and found an original court account, which quotes Kent as recounting at the trial "The next day I waited on Captain Bligh... He told me, with extreme violence, if I knew my duty, I would begin and blow down the town of Sydney about the ears of its inhabitants, until they gave him up the command of the government." Kent further says that he told Bligh that "I could not conceive it my duty, without positive instructions or authority in writing, to attempt an act that would inevitably sacrifice the lives of so many innocent persons, and would destroy so much public and private property." I have therefore struck the incorrect alts, which were based on the phrasing of secondary sources. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Knightmare 3112: Can the last part be removed about restoring Blight's government? This might cause readers to click on the article to find out why someone would want Kent to blow up Sydney. The ALT hook is below:

Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: yeah that looks better to me Knightmare 3112 (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthgrace: as the original reviewer, can you review ALT4a and let us know if it is approved? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for hook Alt4a Ruthgrace (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I love what you all have done with it!!! I approve. Thanks everyone!! Ruthgrace (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have cleaned up Ruthgrace's edits, since she tried to change the "passed" parameter up top (which reviewers aren't supposed to do), and also changed the original hook, which also shouldn't be done. I've moved her approval tick down to just above here, before her comment, and struck all hooks other than ALT4a. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much! sorry, i was having trouble figuring out how to do this properly based on the reviewer instructions. Appreciate the example. Ruthgrace (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_George_Carlile_Kent&oldid=1207951565"