Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Negro (1916)


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

HMS Negro (1916)

 * ... that, during World War I, HMS Negro sank after two depth charges from HMS Hoste tore open its hull?

Created by Esemono (talk) and Nigel Ish (talk). Nominated by Esemono (talk) at 05:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/2016 Al-Karak attack
 * On it, starting with the malformatted hook. (Fixt.) — Llywelyn II   13:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Well, I'll do the rest of the review in a bit but, Esemono and Mr Ish, you have to know that most of the clickthroughs on this are going to be about WTF the thing was named the Negro. I'm aware you've got an effectively 1919 source for an etymology but "original European term for people of African descent" is (a)effectively no explanation at all since it's just saying it's named after a dictionary word and (b)worse than no gloss at all given that the dictionary invoked is for the non-existent language "European". There's no such language and there's nothing "original" about it. "Black" goes back to Old English; "Negro" was originally written "Nigro" and that didn't happen til at least 6 centuries after "black". The "1813 Negro" was a renaming of the 1759 Niger, which is the actual Latin (≈"European") word for the people the Spanish called negro. It's sourced, yeah, but it's sourced to something objectively wrong and should be noted, if at all, in a footnote and with a comment about its incorrectness. (If you don't know how to do sourced footnotes, you use efn or refn instead of the normal  format. If you use efn, you add an extra section at the bottom for those notes and use noteslist to display it.)

The actual origin of the M-class destroyers seems to have been something about the alliteration—they seem to go M... M... M..., then N... N... N..., O... O... O..., and P... P... P...—but you can hopefully find a source saying that, along with (hopefully) an explanation for why they didn't just stick with M... in the first place.

Naming conventions for destroyers of the Royal Navy seems like a place to start. — Llywelyn II   14:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC) G2G with ALT0. — Llywelyn II   13:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a note about the M-class names - basically the Admiralty ran out of good names beginning with M, added a reference to the ship being the 2nd bearing that name and removed the derivation of the word "Negro" which doesn't add anything and appears to be incorrect anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * * Thanks! — Llywelyn II   13:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the rest of the review, new enough; long enough (~4.4k elig. chars.); per, the article is in the right place (laid down in 1915 but we dab by launch dates); sourced and, although the citation sections themselves were misnamed, that's been fixed; apart from the sourced and mistake mentioned above, no tone or content issues; Earwig finds no copyvio; hook terse enough and sourced. It's not really accurate (the context is the charges fell off the Hoste in the middle of a storm) but it's technically accurate and that's all we need here. Better hook without the explanation anyway. Esemono's QPQ done. (We don't need both of them to do one, right?) —  Llywelyn II   14:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the depth charges appear to have fallen off the stern of Hoste because of the collision, not because of the poor weather - this is stated both by Dorling and the appropriate Naval Staff Memorandum (No. 34 - pp. 18–20.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Haoba. In any case, with the name issue cleaned up as well as possible,