Talk:Acheron-class torpedo boat

Learn more about this page

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Australia: New South Wales / Military history / Maritime Low‑importance

	Australia portal Acheron-class torpedo boat is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Article fails WP:V

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per WP:V, text in Wiki articles must be verifiable to published information and readers must be able to locate that information somewhere, somehow. Naval Historical Society of Australia gives no title, date, nothing to indicate what the published info is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Source appears to be website linked in bibliography. Now clarified, with convenience link also given in footnote. Kablammo (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you know? 30 Oct 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Who wrote the crap DYK lead for this article? Very poor grasp of reality there! Downsize43 (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is not a very good hook. Here is the history:

[1] nom

[2] suggestion for another hook

[3] approval of revised hook

[4] move to prep. Thereafter the original hook apparently was used instead. I don't know when that substitution occurred.

The original nominator was not the author of this article, nor were the other folks involved. They are unlikely to see your comments here. You may get a better response if you took your complaint to Wikipedia talk:Did you know (but I would lose the "crap" in your post), as it seems like the folks who run DYK selected the wrong hook. Kablammo (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Add topic