Template talk:Did you know/HMS Phoenix (N96)

HMS Phoenix (N96)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Crisco 1492 (talk)

... that HMS Phoenix (N96) (pictured) was the 18th Royal Navy warship to carry the name Phoenix and was destroyed in World War II without getting a single kill?

Alt hook 1:*... that HMS Phoenix (N96) (pictured) was the 18th Royal Navy warship to carry the name Phoenix?
Alt hook 2:*... that HMS Phoenix (N96) (pictured) was destroyed by the Italian torpedo boat Albatros in World War II without getting a single kill?

Reviewed: Express Yourself

Created by Ryan Vesey (talk). Self nom at 00:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have included an alternate image as well Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

Length, format, content rules: Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source: The single kill thing is not stated directly in the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interest: I prefer ALT2, once cited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image suitability, if applicable: Forgive me, but I don't think either pic is discernable at 100px ... do you? Tony (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image I have of Phoenix travelling from China to the Mediterranean is more discernable. If I found someone who could create a new file with a cropped version of the picture, would that work? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image with a cropped version. Is it better? I have also added the cropped version to the article. Am I correct that the image must be included in the article? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT hooks, if proposed:

Article

Length: Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vintage: Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality: Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism/close paraphrasing: Looks fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio (images): PD. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting: Units check only The infobox is inconsistent in use of full and symbolic forms. Mosnum says use abbreviations in infoboxes. Some instances of 'mile' are not specified as nautical or statute. Some units are in need of metric conversions. Some units are linked. Linking of units is currently under discussion at wt:mosnum. My opinion is if a conversion provides at least one unit likely to be known to a reasonable reader, no links are needed. All comments intended to be helpful - well done otherwise. I've not checked the article for anything else. Lightmouse (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally some time to start checking this. I really have very little knowledge on units of measurement and conversions but I made changes here. I did not completely remove the links, but instead linked only the input values "long ton" and "knot" as I believe both of those can be considered obscure. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think horsepower can be abbreviated to 'hp' in the infobox. When weapon calibres are in mm, it's almost always rounded to the nearest integer thus '102 mm' instead of '101.6 mm'. Is there any way that you or one of the ship fans can establish what type of miles they are? Lightmouse (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll forward this to User:Shem1805 he seems to have a lot of knowledge in this subject. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked and they are almost certainly nautical miles. I have made the change. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks fine for units now. Good luck Lightmouse (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, none of those issues are really relevant to a DYK review. DYK doesn't have any rule that an article must meet WP:MOSNUM in every way. If anyone sees issues they are welcome to fix them, but an article shouldn't be failed or placed on hold because of units issues. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hook fact needs to be stated directly and cited. Otherwise GTG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is the 18th warship with the name Phoenix is directly stated and cited. The second piece of knowledge is cited, but it might not be considered directly stated. I don't really think it is possible to directly state and cite it so maybe it is better to use Alternate 1. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 is good to go. DYK requires the hook fact to be directly stated and cited in the article, so the "not a single kill", although hookier, cannot be used. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, does the new image work? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]