Template:Did you know nominations/SS Franz Fischer
- 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 SL93 (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
SS Franz Fischer
- ... that the collier Franz Fischer was claimed to have become, in 1916, the first merchant vessel to be sunk by aerial attack but is now thought to have been sunk by a submarine? Source: "The first merchant ship to be actually sunk from the air was the ex - German collier Franz Fischer" from: Strabolgi, Joseph Montague Kenworthy Baron (1930). New Wars: New Weapons. E. Mathews & Marrot. p. 86. "The most likely cause of the explosion was not from the air but from below. UB–17 was in the area, and her Kriegstagesbuch, ‘war diary’ or log book survives (4) noting an attack on a steamer at the Hoofden (the Kentish Knock) ... The official history of the war at sea also came to the same conclusion: UB-17 was responsible" from: "Wreck of the Week". Historic England. Retrieved 24 October 2022.
Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 09:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC).
New article that was moved to mainspace on 25 October 2022 is 4,687 characters and nominated on the same day. No copyvios detected (AGF sources which can't go through Dup detector). Article is well-sourced. Hook is 174 characters long (under 200 character max.) and is interesting. Refs 2 and 9 (verifying the hook) are reliable sources (AGF the latter as there is no preview available). QPQ done. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
A majority of the citations in the article are to non-WP:RS. wrecksite.eu is WP:UGC and https://thewreckoftheweek.com/ is a blog. The hook is cited to one of these as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know RoySmith, I've seen Wrecksite used elsewhere and hadn't realised it was user-generated. I've replaced it partially with a reference to the Lloyd's Register and deleted content I couldn't source - Dumelow (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Restoring green tick given the changes that have been made. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Just noticed that I missed the comment about wreckoftheweek. It is indeed advertised as a "blog" but is officially published by Historic England, an arm if the British government responsible for historic sites. The authors are two of HE's maritime data officers see the site's about section - Dumelow (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know RoySmith, I've seen Wrecksite used elsewhere and hadn't realised it was user-generated. I've replaced it partially with a reference to the Lloyd's Register and deleted content I couldn't source - Dumelow (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)