Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMAS Australia (1911)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HMAS Australia (1911)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and saberwyn
Promoted. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Saberwyn and I have essentially reworked the article from the ground up. We intend to submit this to FAC if this passes ACR so comments on style, etc. are encouraged.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment - "Moreover, the ship's ventilation system was designed for conditions in Europe, and was inadequate for the climate in and around Australia." -- was this ever fixed during her career? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it wasn't. I'm glad I wasn't on board during her operations around New Guinea! Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've contributed a few paragraphs to this article's redevelopment, so am not neutral enough to vote (though I think that Saberwyn and Sturmvogel have done great work and the article is A class). I will offer some comments though:
    • While the statement that Australia's scuttling was "the only time the Australian military has been affected by a disarmament treaty" is cited to a deeply reliable source, I'm not sure if it's correct. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Australian Army destroyed its stock of landmines after Australia signed the Ottawa Treaty.
      • I'm happy to get rid of the original statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the statement from the lead, and qualified it in the body by adding "until the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning the use of anti-personnel mine."...can we get a cite saying Australia was affected? -- saberwyn 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've cited Australia's signature of the treaty, but that really doesn't fully support the statement that it was the only other time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that both photos of the ship's 'A' turret are needed - the large size of these photos (particularly the first one) causes them to conflict with the infobox on my 24" monitor. I'd suggest using the second photo as it shows 'A' turret, one of the wing turrets and an aircraft and is of surprisingly high resolution
    • The 'Stevens' in 'Stevens claims' should be identified in the body of the article
    • I think that the article should say that the East Asiatic Squadron moved to the east rather than 'westwards'
    • The statement in the lead that "Admiralty overcaution over the German ships' predicted movements and repeated diversions to support the capture of German colonies in New Guinea and Samoa meant that the battlecruiser did not have the opportunity to engage the enemy squadron before their destruction" doesn't appear to be borne out by the article's text. It would seem that Australia was used to support landing operations and was then retained in the western Pacific in case the Germans (whose position was largely unknown) headed for Australia, which was probably their most attractive target. This seems to me to have been a reasonable use of the ship given the limited intelligence on German movements, and the negative slant of the lead should probably be amended (particularly given that the Germans went out of their way to avoid Australia, which indicates that she achieved the main mission for which she was acquired).
      • For the record, I hate, hate, hate writing lead sections. Can someone uninvolved with the article take what's there and turn it into something that accurately reflects the article? -- saberwyn 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about something like, "However, German concerns about Australia's superority over their force led to the decision to steer well clear of the south-west Pacific, resulting in Australia fulfilling her role of defending her namesake continent by her mere presence."? I would suggest something about a fleet in being, but a fleet-in-being of one ship, well... - The Bushranger (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The performance of the battecruisers at Jutland should be noted as this had implications for her post-war service Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strictly speaking, I'm not sure that that was a real issue. Her obsolete 12-inch guns and expense seem to be the primary factors. But don't forget that the UK had a limited tonnage available under the Washington Treaty and Australia was certainly more obsolete than Lion or Princess Royal, both of which were scrapped.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a quick comment re: the treaty bit; the first edition of the Oxford Companion was published in 1995, two years before the Ottawa treaty was signed. Presumably it was missed in the subsequent printing. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • How does the fact that the Indefatigables having a wider arc of fire than the Invincibles make them inferior to Von der Tann? I assume you mean that the Invincibles, which couldn't really fire "over the shoulder" were inferior, not the Indefatigables? It might also be worth spelling out what made the ships inferior to Von der Tann (I know they had much thinner armor and a smaller-caliber secondary battery, but not everyone else does ;)
  • Also, did the fact that the RN had obtained the specifics for Von der Tann before Australia and New Zealand were laid down cause any changes to be made on these ships? If not, then that line needs to go since it's more or less irrelevant.
    • The RN doesn't seem to have made any changes in reaction to Von der Tann for Australia and New Zealand. Their armor was rearranged somewhat and another protected deck was added, but these were based on Lion. I'd still like a better accounting of why the Indefatigable design was chosen rather than the larger and more expensive Lion. My guess is money, but I'd like to see some documentation, if I had my druthers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've clarified this. The issue is that the Indefatigable design wasn't an improvement on the Invincible design, and was known to be outdated by the time work started on Australia. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was under the impression that the lengthening of Indefatigable allowed all four turrets to fire on the broadside, while Invincible was limited to only three turrets. Isn't that a somewhat significant improvement? Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Invincibles were capable of limited cross-deck fire, if the damage to the deck was accepted. The Indefatigables just improved the arcs, but still suffered the damage to deck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all for now, I'll read through more later. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Looks good, but there are a still a few missing ndashes. I changed most of the hyphens but got fatigued YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • according to the Featured article tool, there are a couple of dab links that need fixing: [1];
      • Think all have been caught. -- saberwyn 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • external links all work (no action required);
    • on my screen there is a large amount of whitespace in the Modifications section due to the placement of the image directly below the infobox (might just be me, though);
      • Shifted left, but we now might have some sandwiching between image and infobox on smaller monitors. Revert if problematic. -- saberwyn 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think alt text is required anymore, so no action required with this really, however some images appear to have it in this article, but others don't;
    • not all the refs are in numerical order (don't know if this is a requirement, but it makes it look better in my institutionalised opinion)...An example where they are not ordered is in the North Sea operations section where # 78 comes before #74;
      • That's likely a second, or later, use for #74.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, what Rupert appears to mean is a sentance that ends "... foobar.[78][74]" I've seen bot/script edits around that easily fix this problem, but for the life of me don't know what/where to find/request this. Worse comes to worst, I'll sit down in a few days and try to fix this manually. -- saberwyn 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that's what I mean. Its not a war stoper though, and I certainly wouldn't not support the article because a couple of citations are standing out of place on the parade ground. :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Acquisition section there is a red link for "Australia Squadron". I am a land lubber, so I don't know, but we currently have an article on Australia Station, are these the same? If so, one could redirect to the other so you have a blue link;
      • They are similar, but not the same. The Australia Station was the term used for Australia and surrounding waters in the context of naval defence from 1859 to at least 1958. The Australia Squadron was a fleet of British warships assigned to patrol this region and defend Australia's maritime borders between 1859 and 1913 (when the arriving RAN took over). -- saberwyn 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Post war section there is a redlink to "Australian Air Corps". I've not heard of this force, is it meant to be Australian Flying Corps (in which case it is the forerunner to the RAAF)?
      • According to the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, the Australian Air Corps was an intermediary step between the Australian Flying Corps (disbanded c. 1919) and the RAAF (formed 1921). -- saberwyn 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seen. Page 59 in my version. Good spot. I wonder if it is worth creating a stub, or if, like Australian Flying Corps, it should just be redirected to RAAF. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've created a redirect to the RAAF article for now. The AAC barely lasted a year so it doesn't justify its own article to the same extent as the AFC, which I will get round to creating one day... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Decomissioning section there is a citation needed tag that needs dealing with relating to the issue with the landmines mentioned above;
      • Is this worth keeping? I honestly don't think that it's all that notable.
    • In the Decomissioning seciton, I think that there is a word missing in this sentence: "The battlecruiser had to be made unusable for warlike activities within six months of the treaty's ratification, then disposed of by scuttling: Australia did not have the facilities to break her up for scrap, and the British Empire's share of target ships was taken up Royal Navy vessels" (there should be a "by" in between "taken up" and "Royal Navy vessels");
    • As per above, some of the page ranges in the citations still need endashes added to them, # 122 for instance "Sears, in Stevens, The Royal Australian Navy, pp. 56-7"
      • See reply to YellowMonkey. -- saberwyn 06:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far with this. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What does everyone think of linking the first HMAS to Glossary of nautical terms#H Glossary of nautical terms#HMAS and adding HMAS to the glossary? WP:LEAD says to "use as few links as possible" in the bolded repetition of the title, but few isn't none, and linking seems like the standard way to solve the problem that some readers will know what it means and some won't. If we use a note, as some articles do to explain the prefix, the reader won't know whether they need to click on the note or not until they actually click on it. If we take a sentence to explain what it means, that's not as "tight" as some FAC reviewers need the lead to be, since readers from that country who are interested in ships will probably already know what it means. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think HMAS would be an unnecessary link, as I believe that not knowing exactly what the acronym stands for is not going to drastically compromise a reader's understanding of the ship's history. -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a personal preference, and one there's not much support for, but maybe you'll agree: I don't like [nb 1] (nota bene), because I try to take the consistent position that anything most of our readers won't understand should be explained, linked or omitted. "note 1" is popular; I prefer [a], [b], etc. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm personally a fan of roman numerals in curved brackets, (i.e. (I), (II), etc), as implemented with {{note}}/{{ref}}. However, this is an experiment with the references group formatting, which has the advantages of automatically 'naming' the footnotes, with the disadvantage that they come in the form of [foo 1], [foo 2], where foo is the text used to define the group. If it gets too problematic, I'll probably go back to manual note/ref. -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Totally agreed, I like roman numerals too, and if there are a lot of notes, doing [a], [b] by hand really gets tiresome. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a slightly related note, I think footnote 2 could probably be incorporated into the text. -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I've integrated it into the text, how does it look? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than make suggestions for the lead, I'm going to make some changes in one edit then revert myself. If you like the changes you can restore them. - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like most, but making some tweaks to keep things clear (i.e., the second collision was after Jutland, and the phrase "fired in anger" is the one used to describe the two 'incidents' in most of the sources I've seen) and attempting to incorporate Nick-D's and The Bushranger's concerns/comments above. What do you think? -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks great. This "anger" thing is the hardest thing to deal with, for me, in military articles: how do we convey that we understand and respect but don't share the sentiments of the time? (in this case, the superstition that the ship could get angry). - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My understanding of the phrase "Fire in anger" is that its a term used to describe a deliberate, non-training, non-exercise use of a weapons system. As such, its less "A bunch of sailors shaking fists at 'those damn people, take that!' while the guns go off", and more "When we fire this, there is a very good chance that those on the receiving end will be hurt and/or killed. This is intentional". Writing up an article on Fire in anger is on my to-do list, if I can find the sources treating it as a concept instead of just using the phrase. -- saberwyn 12:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there links available for at load and at deep load? Don't see them on wp or wikt. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a couple of different 'subtypes' listed at Displacement (ship), but I'm not 100% sure how those terms correspond with those Sturmvogel used (I think, "standard" and "full" respectively, but I'll leave it to the master). -- saberwyn 12:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturmvogel, please use "4-inch guns" instead of "4 in guns", which a lot of readers are going to stumble on. (I've never been a fan of the convert template, but I'm starting to hate it with a passion ... if I could have searched for "4 in guns", it would have taken me seconds to fix this myself.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other definitions that would be helpful (if we don't reword): BVIII*, en echelon, MK II
    • "MK" is abbreviation for the designation Mark...it has been spelled out in the body of the article, but left abbreviated in the infobox. I've replaced en echelon (meaning, I think, offset diagonally) with a description of the turrets' locations. I don't know what BVIII* means, but assume its the designation for the particular turret design. -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: "En Echelon" is indeed the diagonally offset arrangement - and the proper term for the turret arrangement. BVIII* is in fact the Mark designation of the turrets, the "*" indicating a slight improvement over the BVIII model. This link has more detail on them (down at the bottom of the page). - The Bushranger (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More readers will understand "takeoff" than "flying off"; is the second term more precise?
    • Comment: The terminology of the time was "flying off" - in fact, as mentioned in the article, the ramps installed on the turrets were offically "flying-off platforms" (-it might be an idea to change "ramps" to "platforms" in the article, now that I think about it), and (as an aside) quite a few early aircraft carriers had short "flying-off decks" in the bow. ...also I'd hate to be flying anything off of P and Q turrets! - The Bushranger (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I try to take a consistent position that the writing should be easy to read for people living now. If a modern Australian is likely to have heard the term, even if it's a historical term, then that's fine. If they haven't, then I'd usually like to see the term linked, explained, or omitted. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the connection between "the least obsolescent of her class" and the rest of the paragraph it's in.
  • I have no problem with single quotes around 'P', but I think 'Fleet Units' risks the wrath of MOS; see "Double or single" at WP:MOS#Quotation marks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding of quotation marks as used in AusEng is that double (") quotes are used when you're quoting someone, and single (') quotes are used for emphasis or highlighting of a term. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section I linked at MOS was written by a prominent Australian, I believe. There are a lot of good arguments both ways, and I've seen single quotes sneak through at FAC many times, so maybe it will be okay. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prompted by the potential for Japan to enter the war" could use a little more explanation for most readers. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed one instance of Von Spee to von Spee for consistency, but the rule I follow is from AP Stylebook, "foreign names": usually lowercase, but follow individual preferences for how the name is spelled in English: bin Laden, but Van Gogh. I don't know what rule Australian copyeditors follow but I bet it's the same; I don't know if von Spee had a preference. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcs I used had lowercase "von", unless it was the start of a sentance, of course. I must have missed that one. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that a colon can sometimes replace a semicolon, but not in the places you're using them; [for instance, a colon wouldn't work here!] starting in the North Sea operations section, please replace the colons by semicolons, full stops/periods or dashes as appropriate. (Exceptions: the colons are fine before "two for a year, one for eighteen months ..." and "the United Kingdom, the United States of America ...") - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! Complex punctuation... my other weakness! I've had a crack at it, how does it look now? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These duties were so monotonous, one sailor was driven insane." This needs rewording; tedium doesn't actually cause mental illness, and "insanity" in American English at least is meaningless except in a legal sense. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phrasing used by the source, and the lack of context means I'm reluctant to change it. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm supporting at A-class, and I won't vote at FAC when I'm this involved, but I don't think that will pass FAC (if the reviewers are paying attention). "Insane" isn't in the DSM or ICD, and even if it were, boredom couldn't "drive" you there. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'happy ship' seems too informal, and double quote marks are needed if you keep it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rephrased. How does it look now? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what "paid off into reserve" means. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its BritEng for decommissioned and assigned to a reserve fleet. -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for an excellent article, after the "citation needed" is addressed. I hope you'll consider my comments but this isn't FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To all the questions above: I like everything in the diff of your changes. I asked another guy who's done a lot of copyediting work about "night-time"; we think the hyphen is going to the same early grave as a lot of other hyphens these days, but it's not wrong, either. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Question for the masses: I'm a little interigued by the lead image (which is from the Library of Congress). I expanded it while traying to come up with alt text, and have found something odd... if that's Australia, why is she flying the Union Flag, and not the Australian National Flag at the jackstaff? -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good point. The State Library of Victoria has a photo of her flying the Australian National Flag on her bow. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although there was a bit of confusion over what flags Australian warships should fly, it was decreed in 1911 that RAN ships would fly the British White Ensign as an ensign, and the Australian flag as the jack (see Australian White Ensign for details). Is there a chance that the ship is another battlecruiser (likely Indefatigable or New Zealand) and the Library of Congress (or a previous holder of that copy, as it was more likely them that wrote 'H.M.A.S. "Australia"' over the bottom left corner of the image) has misidentified it? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that this is actually Indefatigable, based on the two spotting tops. Australia and New Zealand had only one, on the foremast. I'll change it out when I get a chance during lunch. I'm also thinking about adding a plan drawing to show the layout of the turrets. What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diagram showing the turrets would be brilliant. Swap it for the 'A' turret image and move that elsewhere? -- saberwyn 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I moved the turret picture down to the next section on modifications. I'm not sure that that's really the best place for it, but maybe we could swap it for the 1913 delivery picture which isn't anything spectacular, although appropriate to that section, if it clutters things up to much. Thematically it would be best in the post-Jutland or postwar sections, but they're already pretty full.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support not sure whats preventing this from being closed but it looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMAS_Australia_(1911)&oldid=1138360647"