Talk:Draupner wave

Limnology and Oceanography Low‑importance

	Oceans portal This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Mid‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Draupner wave was the first scientific evidence that rogue waves exist?

Source: https://www.earth.com/news/most-extreme-rogue-wave-recorded-in-the-pacific-ocean/

Reviewed:
Comment: Will do QPQ either later tonight or tomorrow.

Moved to mainspace by EF5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 15 past nominations.

E_F⁵ 23:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@EF5, you did not specify a reason for eligibility (newness or 5x expansion). Since this was a split from Rogue wave, it isn't new, and DYKCheck says the split content hasn't been expanded fivefold, so I believe this article is not currently eligible for DYK. As I am still new to DYK reviewing, I am asking for a second opinion to confirm this. Toadspike [Talk] 14:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fair warning, WP:QPQ says "Your QPQ review should be made before or at the time of your nomination. A nomination which doesn't include a QPQ (and is not from an exempt nominator) may be closed as "incomplete" without warning." I strongly advise you to have a QPQ ready before any future DYK nominations to remove the risk of such a quickfail. Toadspike [Talk] 14:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

@EF5 I removed a duplicated sentence for you in the background section, letting you know in case your intent was to split the one sentence into two.

What does "16/11" mean? Toadspike [Talk] 09:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]