Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Terror (I03)
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
HMS Terror (I03)
.jpg)
HMS Terror at Plymouth in 1933
- ... that in 1917 the crew of HMS Terror (pictured) had to abandon ship because her Captain refused to sail the ship backwards? Source: Dunn, Steve R (2017) Securing the Narrow Sea; The Dover Patrol 1914-1918. Also, Buxton, Ian (2008) Big gun monitors: design, construction and operations 1914-1945.
- ALT1:... that HMS Terror (pictured) helped defend Malta from air raids following the Italian declaration of war in June 1940? Source: Buxton, Ian (2008) Big gun monitors: design, construction and operations 1914-1945.
Improved to Good Article status by From Hill To Shore (talk). Self-nominated at 20:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC).
- New enough (good article), long enough, within policy, no copyvio per Earwig, QPQ criterion does not apply. Image is OK. Both the main hooks and the ALT1 are OK; the main hook looks more hookish.
There is an inconsistency in the citation style; when citing sections (e.g. 'Dunn 2017, c. 13, Section: "New monitors"') the word is not abbreviated. I don't know about the style used in the article, but the Chicago MOS, for example, explicitly states that it should be abbreviated as "sec." ('Dunn 2017, c. 13, sec. "New monitors"') --Z 13:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ZxxZxxZ: All uses of "section" in the references have now been changed to "sec." From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Ready for DYK --Z 14:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please provide an inline cite right after the sentence in which the ALT0 hook fact appears. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Done.[1] The hook comes from a summary of facts that appear in a few sentences, which are supported by paragraph-level citations. I've copied a citation to the key sentence but let me know if you think more is needed. I don't think duplicating a citation too often in the same paragraph will be particularly helpful though. I don't think that is the spirit of what the guideline intended and it is bound to get reversed by a copy editor later. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @From Hill To Shore: Thank you. Now you have an inline cite for the crew evacuating, but not for the caption refusing to sail backwards. Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- As I tried to say in my comment above, you are enforcing the letter of a guideline here but I think you are straying from the spirit of it. All that will happen is that I will insert the same citation three times to cover three sentences in the same paragraph that already had adequate sourcing. As I noted above, I expect that a copy editor will reverse this later.[2] From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- New enough (good article), long enough, within policy, no copyvio per Earwig, QPQ criterion does not apply. Image is OK. Both the main hooks and the ALT1 are OK; the main hook looks more hookish.
Follow up discussion edit
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Did you know.[3]
- "... that the crew of HMS Terror had to abandon ship in 1917 because the captain refused to sail the ship backwards?" - The article does not say this. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- What do you feel the article says differently? @From Hill To Shore and Yoninah: courtesy ping — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- There isn't a causal link between not going backwards and developing a leak. "The ship sailed first to Dover on 21 October but on the next leg of the journey to Portsmouth two days later, in heavy seas, a major leak developed off Hastings." The inquiry absolved him of any blame which doesn't suggest the admiralty thought he could do it any differently. Woody (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed the hook from the next queue and replaced it with another hook. It is now in Prep 5. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this seems a legitimate error. The hook implies that the decision not to reverse into Dock directly led to the leak and evacuation. But the article goes on to say that an inquiry concluded the captain was not to blame. So the causality is not proven, and shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest reopening the nom. — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nope, no error here. The sources are clear that the leak was a direct result of the captain ingnoring the advice of the salvage expert and putting pressure on the temporary patch over the bow. The sources are also clear that the captain was a bit lucky with the inquiry; its scope was very narrow and only looked at the decisions taken in the lead up to the abandonment, not the root causes (in other words, was it right for him to order his men off a ship that looked like it was sinking but actually stayed afloat?). It is a non-sequitur to claim that the inquiry approved his decision to put pressure on the bow by ignoring the salvage expert's advice. I'll have a go at rephrasing the article to try and alleviate your concerns (I'll just have to get a little closer to paraphrasing the source rather than use my own words). From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this seems a legitimate error. The hook implies that the decision not to reverse into Dock directly led to the leak and evacuation. But the article goes on to say that an inquiry concluded the captain was not to blame. So the causality is not proven, and shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest reopening the nom. — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed the hook from the next queue and replaced it with another hook. It is now in Prep 5. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- There isn't a causal link between not going backwards and developing a leak. "The ship sailed first to Dover on 21 October but on the next leg of the journey to Portsmouth two days later, in heavy seas, a major leak developed off Hastings." The inquiry absolved him of any blame which doesn't suggest the admiralty thought he could do it any differently. Woody (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- What do you feel the article says differently? @From Hill To Shore and Yoninah: courtesy ping — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@DuncanHill, MSGJ, Woody, Cwmhiraeth, and Amakuru: I've brought in a third source to expand the section and clarify the sequence of events.[4] Is this sufficient or do you have any residual concerns? The use of the third source has allowed me to avoid any close paraphrasing. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for expanding and clarifying the article. Could we rephrase the hook
- ALT2 ... that in 1917, the crew of HMS Terror had to abandon ship after the captain refused to sail the damaged ship stern first? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm happy with that. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- The alt hook and the expanded article alleviate my concerns. Woody (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)