Talk:HMS Martin (1910)

Did you know nomination

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 Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

HMS Martin

• ... that the HMS Martin (pictured) was part of the Grand Fleet of the Royal Navy in the First World War, but after the war the ship was broken up to save money? Source: Preston, Antony (1985). "Great Britain and Empire Forces". In Gardiner, Robert; Gray, Randal (eds.). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921. London: Conway Maritime Press. pp. 1–104. ISBN 978-0-85177-245-5. and Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006). Ships of the Royal Navy: A Complete Record of All Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy from the 15th Century to the Present. London: Chatham. ISBN 978-1-85367-566-9.
• Friedman, Norman (2009). British Destroyers: From Earliest Days to the First World War. Barnsley: Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84832-049-9. and Moretz, Joseph (2002). The Royal Navy and the Capital Ship in the Interwar Period. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-71465-196-5.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mammalian kidney
  • Comment: Offline sources for the hook

Improved to Good Article status by Simongraham (talk). Nominated by Bruxton (talk) at 01:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/HMS Martin (1910); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will review this soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Simongraham and Bruxton: The file on Commons licenses this image based on the fact that the photographer died in 1920, but the alledged photographer, Ernest Hopkins, died in 1911. Please correct this before I approve this nomination. Otherwise, this is a pretty interesting and nice fact. A 0% on Earwig. Wow. I don't think I've ever seen that before. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead: Thank you for the review. I have changed the author's death in the license. Bruxton (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Should be all good to go now. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton and Unlimitedlead: I'm concerned that the hook fact is not fully supported by the sources, specifically the part about "broken up to save money". Of the sources given, Preston 1985, Colledge & Warlow 2006, and Friedman 2009 confirm the date of sale but don't give any further information, just "sold for BU" and the date. Moretz 2002 doesn't mention the HMS Martin at all. In the article, the part about the Navy needing to save money is cited to p. 79 of Moretz – this and the preceding pages do talk about cutbacks in the Mediterranean Fleet, but again, the Martin isn't mentioned by name or even referred to indirectly as far as I can tell. I don't think the information in the hook can be inferred from the sources provided. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Personally I was able to infer, but I do understand that it is not explicit. @Bruxton: May you please find an explicit source or write a new hook? Thank you kindly, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth and Unlimitedlead:.

• ALT1: ... that the HMS Martin (pictured) was part of the Grand Fleet of the Royal Navy in the First World War, but after the war the ship was sold to be broken up?
• ALT2: ... that the HMS Martin (pictured) was the eleventh ship in Royal Navy service to be given the name?

If you are satisfied please remove the stopper. Bruxton (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Almost. Can we have sources? They can be the same ones as above; I just would like them again please. Thanks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

They are offline sources - ALT1 is the same sources as above because it is an very similar hook without two facts. And ALT2 is Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006). Ships of the Royal Navy: A Complete Record of All Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy from the 15th Century to the Present. London: Chatham. ISBN 978-1-85367-566-9. and *Manning, Thomas Davys; Walker, Charles Frederick (1959). British Warship Names. London: Putnam. OCLC 780274698. Archived from the original on 14 April 2023. Retrieved 7 April 2023. Bruxton (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Any page numbers? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Offline sources which are used in a GA article. We need to AGF unless we have the books. @Sojourner in the earth: will also need to be satisfied for the nomination to proceed: however hooks still needs your approval. Bruxton (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I will approve this nomination once more for ALT 1 and ALT2. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about ALT2; the sources provided list eleven ships called Martin, but the first two served during the British Interregnum, at a time when the Royal Navy was in fact called the Commonwealth Navy. But ALT1 is fine. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)