Template:Did you know nominations/Normandy landings

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewing guide WMFLabs Dup detector Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count Reviewers' template Disambig links External links Find sources (notability)

Normandy landings

• ( Back to T:TDYK
• Article history )

US Army troops wade ashore on Omaha Beach on the morning of 6 June 1944

• ... that the Normandy landings (pictured) on 6 June 1944 were part of the largest seaborne invasion in history?

• Comment: No QPQ, this is a third party nom. For reasons I needn't explain, could we fast track this to the holding area for tomorrow?

Improved to Good Article status by Diannaa (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 08:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

• Your proposed hook is too similar to the one already approved for Operation Overlord. How about

ALT1: ... that Allied air supremacy, elaborate deceptions, and specialised armour all contributed to the success of the Normandy landings (pictured) on 6 June 1944? -- Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ping Been watching this DYK nom, it's a shame things came to a halt before the anniversary. I was wondering if an exception could be made to get this on the main page on 11/11? Nathan121212 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

One possibility is ALT2 : ... that Caen, a key target for the Normandy landings (pictured), was not captured by the Allies until 21 July 1944? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Royal Engineers in Caen

ALT3 : ... that a key target for the Normandy landings, Caen (pictured), was not captured by the Allies until 21 July 1944? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Substantial article on good sources, hook slightly reworded and an image suggested that matches it better, but would have to go to the article. Best on 21 July. Now we probably need yet another reviewer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

16px New reviewer please. Nathan121212 (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• 16px Article: promoted to GA on 5 June, so it is new enough; also long enough. Both hook images are free. All images in article are free. I confirm no QPQ required. Article is written in objective manner and neutral style, and fully cited. No inappropriate disambig links found. The first column in the Bibliography section was checked for external sources of copyvio and close paraphrasing; one item found: see issue 2 below. The remaining external links were not checked for duplication.
• Original hook is short enough and sourced with offline citation #180, accepted AGF (but see issue 2 below).
• ALT1 is short enough (154 char.), and sourced to offline citation #61 (air supremacy), offline citations including #31 (for elaborate deceptions) and offline citation #190 (specialized armour): all accepted AGF.
• ALT2 and ALT3 are sourced to offline citation #185, accepted AGF.
• Comment on hooks: Because ALT2 and ALT3 are identical in content, I have struck ALT2 because ALT3 is more elegantly phrased. Note: (The following hook prefs are my personal opinion only) If one of these hooks is to be saved for 11/11, then I would be hesitant to use ALT1 because it is too triumphant and not sufficiently neutral for an international Remembrance Day in which the fallen of all nations are remembered with compassion. In that context I would prefer ALT3.
• Issues: (1) In the further reading section, the external link for Stacey CP is a deadlink. (2) "Largest seaborne invasion in history" is a quote from the external link attached to Holland 2014 in the Bibliography section, but it is not in quotation marks in the text or original hook.
• Summary: When issues 1 and 2 are resolved, this nom should be OK. The choice of hook is still open to consensus. --Storye book (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• The phrase "largest seaborne invasion in history" was added to the body of the article May 2 and to the lead on May 10. The Holland article is dated June 5, so CNN actually has copied from us rather than the other way around. The passage is sourced to Beevor p.74, which says "by far the largest fleet that had ever put to sea". Dead link has been repaired. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• 16px All issues resolved. Good to go, with original hook or ALT1 or ALT3. Note to Admin: there has been a request above (by Nathan121212 on 12 June) that this nom be saved for 11/11. --Storye book (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why that date? If ALT1, the date should be dropped as over. For ALT3, 21 July would be the day to go for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• 16px Still good to go. (See above comments posted today about saving this nom for anniversary/centenary) My own preference is for ALT3. --Storye book (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)