The following discussion 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 Allen3 ^talk 14:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• ... that, as one of the fastest sailers available to George Byng, HMS Superb played a pivotal role in the Battle of Cape Passero (pictured), tracking the enemy through the night, then forcing the surrender of the Spanish flagship the following day?

• ALT1: ... that HMS Superb played a pivotal role in the Battle of Cape Passero (pictured), tracking the enemy through the night, then forcing the surrender of the Spanish flagship the following day?

• Reviewed: Gregory Taronites

Created/expanded by Ykraps (talk). Self nominated at 13:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC).

• Ran DYK check - OK. Ran Copyvio - OK. The hook could be improved to have article link first, see ALT1. Continuing to review. Zeete (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• ALT1: ... that HMS Superb played a pivotal role in the Battle of Cape Passero (pictured), tracking the enemy through the night, then forcing the surrender of the Spanish flagship the following day?

• Found disambig problem, Chatham. Zeete (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed
• Original hook, at 233 characters, was over the limit of 200. I've struck it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

How are you counting this? Are you including the spaces?--Ykraps (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. It does include spaces. My mistake.--Ykraps (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Problem with hook: I could not find "forcing the surrender" in the article, or in the London Gazette reference, or in the battle article. Zeete (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The precise wording in the Gazette is, "...the Superbe ranged up under her Lee Quarter, on which she struck to her". As in striking the colours (meaning surrendering). Similar words are used in the article.--Ykraps (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I understand now, but think a general reader might not. Consider wording in the article to match the hook: "force the Spanish Admiral to surrender" with a note explaining how the Gazette wording "she struck to her" meant striking her colours meaning to surrender. Note the picture description states "hauling down her flag", which also could be clearer. What do you think? Zeete (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's probably okay, given that it is an internationally recognized sign of surrender, but I understand why you have reservations. If you want it changed, there are two options: I can either change the wording in the article and hook to "strike" and wikilink to Striking the colors, or I can re-reference the article with this [[1]] for example, which specifically mentions Superb "forcing the surrender". Whichever you think best. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• I've done the former, as the easiest option but if you prefer the latter option then let me know.--Ykraps (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think "surrender" is the correct word and that wikilinking to "Striking the colors" is sufficient. So if you change the hook back to surrender and change strike to surrender in the wikilink, it should be ok. DYK Cited hook rule a) Zeete (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Date inconsistency: There seems to be a mix of old style and new style dates in the article. In the battle section, 30 July (no year given) is used, which is probably old style, the Gazette has a date of Aug. 6, O.S. The battle is the next day, which would be 31 July, but the battle article and the picture has 11 August 1718 for the date. What do you think? Zeete (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The inconsistency with the dates is caused by the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in September 1752. It's not the first time I've forgotten to take that into account when using pre-Gregorian sources! I have corrected the dates (Gregorianised them) and added an explanatory note at the foot of the article. Hope all is okay now.--Ykraps (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Dates look good now. Nice job. Zeete (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ready to go, hook and article agree and are well sourced. Zeete (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)