Talk:HMS Resolution (09)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Propose altering the caption on the first picture to read 'Resolution between the wars'. The current caption 'at anchor' is inaccurate as the ship is clearly underway. Apart from the visual signs of water flow along the hull, the ship is flying the White Ensign at the stern; if at anchor it would also have a Union Flag at the jackstaff. The mistake might have arisen from the vertical chains hanging from the bow. These are not anchor chains but part of the paravane installation. Mandrake079 (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could well be right, but I'd prefer to see what the original photo caption said. If you could dig up and add a link to the original image, presumably on the IWM website, that would be great. Otherwise, I've been informed that judging things like that for yourself is WP:OR and verboten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't find the original image on the IWM site or anywhere else (it's not my image, and the uploader hasn't given any clues). As you may have guessed, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor; my proposal was intended simply as a professional interpretation of the visual evidence and I apologise if that constitutes 'verboten' original research. I note, however, that the photo in the article was originally captioned 'HMS Resolution between the wars'; the phrase 'at anchor' was added on 3 May 2014, so it ought to be possible to WP:PROVEIT one way or the other by referencing the published source on which the edit was based. Mandrake079 (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pity that you couldn't find it (I was hoping that you might have better search-fu that I do), which probably means that we'll have to drop the image entirely as images in good article and better have to have locatable sources. Annoying as it's got an IWM file number and it's a pretty decent image of the ship. Personally I'm "the more information about an image, the better", but I've been criticized for dating photos by the changes to their appearance and making conclusions about their movements because making those conclusions is using my judgement and not repeating what a source said. Just trying to help you avoid stepping into a potential minefield.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the IWM file number that you mention - probably because I don't know my way around the Wikimedia Commons well enough - so couldn't search for it properly. You'll be aware of the IWM's Q65625 (1933) and Q71893 (1939) though neither is as good as the existing image (assuming that depicts 'Resolution' at all which, if I follow the logic, might be questionable given its apparent lack of provenance). Thank you for pointing out the pitfalls of editing. I'd assumed that correcting an obvious technical mistake would be simple (assuming one can tell the difference between a ship that's at anchor and one that's underway) but I now realise it's a lot more complicated and therefore withdraw the proposed amendment with profuse apologies. I am still curious how the original caption came to be embellished in 2014. After careful study I can see nothing to suggest that the ship was at anchor at the precise moment the photo was taken and would be interested, from a professional perspective, to know the basis on which that particular amendment was made. Mandrake079 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I coulda sworn that there was an A series file number for the image, but I guess not. I suspect that somebody saw the paravane chain hanging straight down and thought it was an anchor chain (despite the two visible anchors!) and with a very small bow wave and lack of wind that she wasn't moving. And probably didn't know about the protocol for the White Ensign vs. Union Flag.
Editing's not so bad really, provided that you cite your sources and keep your own opinions out of the article. I'd be happy to help if there's an article that you'd like to improve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Resolution (09)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 02:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This article is in great shape. I have a few comments/queries:

  • was Resolution a super-dreadnought or dreadnought battleship? If so, perhaps state this in the lead and first section.
    • Done, good idea
  • the designed displacement doesn't match between the body and infobox. check?
    • Hmm, I hadn't really checked the box because I figured when Sturm redid the design section and the box a few years back, he had taken care of it - either there was a slip up or some errors crept in during that time
  • suggest "2 setspairs" as a set doesn't state how many?
    • Good idea
  • the range doesn't match between the body and infobox. check?
    • Fixed
  • shouldn't the crew numbers in the infobox be as designed/commissioned?
    • Yes
  • mention in the body that the casemated guns were all single mounts?
    • Done
  • 1929–1931 and 1932–1933 per MOS:DATERANGE
    • Fixed
  • "the aft pair of torpedo tubes were also removed" but weren't they on the broadside? Same query re: "The forward pair of submerged torpedo tubes"
    • Right, all four on the broadside - the ones removed were the tubes furthest aft on each side
  • "were replaced with QF 4-inch Mk XVI guns in Mk XIX twin mounts"
    • Good catch
  • "nine 20 mm Oerlikons" and were these single mounts?
    • Fixed the plural, but I'll have to ping @Sturmvogel 66: since I don't have Raven & Roberts
  • the crew numbers in the infobox aren't in the body?
    • Fixed
  • link keel laying, ceremonial ship launching and ship commissioning?
    • Done
  • Smryna→Smyrna
    • Fixed
  • typo "in hte collision"
    • Fixed
  • when Bévéziers torpedoed Resolution, were there casualties?
    • I would assume so, but Smith doesn't mention any, oddly enough. I can't find anything specific, but this indicates there were 39 British casualties] in the course of the operation, but both battleships were hit repeatedly by coastal guns, as were several other ships in the squadron, so who knows how many of those were from Resolution. There's a copy of The Guns of Dakar at OSU - I'll see if I can pick it up this week, maybe it'll have casualty details.
  • "Australian Division" this was the 9th Division (Australia), not the 1st Division, and this was Operation Pamphlet
    • Fixed
  • Queen Elizabeth-class battleship is duplinked
    • Removed
  • no copyvio or plagiarism detected by the Earwig tool, just some sentence fragments from [1], consisting of common phrases.
  • the EL of Photos of William S Barton HMS Resolution 1939-43 doesn't resolve for me.
    • Hmm, it's not working for me either - removed
  • the cost in the infobox isn't in the body
    • Removed - I don't generally like including cost for things like this
  • sources all good and properly formatted
  • File:HMS Revenge (1916) profile drawing.png what was the source used to draw it?
    • Hmm, that might be a problem - the uploader retired in 2008 (though they have edited sporadically since then, including once in November 2018) - I'll leave a note but I don't expect a reply anytime soon (if at all).
      • Actually, per Nikki here, I should just be able to confirm the accuracy of the image with the sources I have, which is no problem at all. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:HMS Resolution FL18214.jpg could do with a small crop to get rid of the notation and border (not a GA requirement)
  • all the images have compliant licences.

Just placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PM! Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm passing it as is. Just see my suggestion re: the TT removals, and remember the single mounts once Sturm gets back to you. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, and contains no plagiarism. Images have appropriate licensing and captions. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guns[edit]

The final sentence of the final paragraph states: "One of Resolution's 15-inch guns, which was later fitted to the monitor HMS Roberts, is on display at the Imperial War Museum in London."[2]

The historical note to the reffed IWM pic states: "This gun was mounted in the battleship HMS Resolution from 1915-1938, and was first fired in action against targets in the Sea of Marmora in 1920. It was stored from 1938-44 when it was mounted in the twin 15-in gunned monitor HMS Roberts." Roberts' turret and guns originally came from HMS Marshal Soult. Neither this article nor the Roberts one mentions the removal or re-fitting of these guns. Also asking at the Roberts talk page. Any ideas, anyone? MinorProphet (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMS_Resolution_(09)&oldid=1213121328"