- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
MT Botaş FSRU Ertuğrul Gazi
- ... that the Turkey-flagged LNG FSRU Ertuğrul Gazi is with her daily regasification capacity of 28 million m3 among the world largest? Source: "Ertuğrul Gazi FSRU Delivered to Turkey's BOTAS ", "With a daily gasification capacity of 28 million cubic meters (990 million standard cubic feet) per day, the new FSRU ranks among the vessels with the highest send-out capacity in the world. " [1]
Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 10:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC).
- Not a review but FSRU is not a widely known acronym and should be spelt out, in my opinion (I think a case could be made for LNG also) - Dumelow (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Dumelow: The full words of the said abbreviations, which are wikilinks, can be easily seen when the mouse is put on. CeeGee 14:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @CeeGee: The other issue is that we now have three links back-to-back-to-back. See WP:SEAOFBLUE. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the Ertuğrul Gazi, a Turkey-flagged floating storage and regasification unit for liquefied natural gas, has a daily regasification capacity of 28 million m3, among the world's largest? CeeGee 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall:
The article was new enough when nominated, is long enough (~3300 chars), and the QPQ looks good. All the substantive content is supported by citations to reliable published sources, and the article takes an appropriately neutral tone toward the topic. I'm not seeing signs of plagiarism from online sources. The proposed hook is supported by cited sources, and it's (just) short enough; I suppose it's interesting enough, too. This article is approved for DYK, with hook
ALT1. Good work!
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 14:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The article was new enough when nominated, is long enough (~3300 chars), and the QPQ looks good. All the substantive content is supported by citations to reliable published sources, and the article takes an appropriately neutral tone toward the topic. I'm not seeing signs of plagiarism from online sources. The proposed hook is supported by cited sources, and it's (just) short enough; I suppose it's interesting enough, too. This article is approved for DYK, with hook ALT1. Good work! Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)