Talk:Henry Ritchie

GA assessment – on hold at this time

Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria. As you will see I have placed the article on hold at this time.

I prefer to give as reasonable amount of feedback as is possible in the case of on-hold and failed nominations. Please do not take the on hold too badly – the article is on its way and just needs to gain a bit of serious concentration throughout to reach the stage of a pass..

To assist in this process I normally also suggest that as each adjustment is made, that editors place the template {{done}} after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion.  Done

1. My first overall comment is that the article has quite a few places (some I highlight below) where the grammar is choppy. The article also reads less than an encyclopaedic style at times and more like a newspaper report. For example use of phrases such as …(and he was hustled to the sick bay, lucky to still be alive) and ("simply smothered in blood and barely conscious") tend to some more emotive than informative language. Done
2. My second overall comments is that the article needs to be tightened up in a few places – as it tends to move of the subject of Ritchie and focus on to other people such as the Surgeon etc more than necessary from time to time. Done
3. Can I suggest that this sentence (the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces) should be changed to reflect that the Victoria Cross is awarded to ‘a member’ of the British and Commonwealth forces?
4. Many sub-headings need to be re-factored so that they follow this guideline. Done
5. Wiki-link the following words: Edinburgh; and any others that lend weight to the subject at hand Done
6. Grammar at the end of this sentence (at the training ship HMS Britannia aged sixteen in 1890) should in my view be adjusted to … at the training ship HMS Britannia in 1890 at the age of sixteen. I also wonder if the word is embarking at or on the training ship? Done
7. Please adjust all inline citations so that they follow either immediately after the punctuation mark (whenever that citation comes at the end of a sentence or a pause in the sentence). Also ensure that there is one space after every inline citation. Done
8. I do not agree with the heading ‘Early life’ as it refers to much more than his early life. I would suggest a change of heading title – to better reflect the content to follow. Done
9. This sentence does not follow? (This ambition was aided a dock scuttled in the channel by the Germans to prevent large British warships bombarding the undefended city from its own harbour.) Done
10. The grammar in this sentence also does not follow (Ritchie spent six weeks in hospital in Zanzibar, receiving from his near-fatal wounds before he was well enough for a transport home to England,) Done
11. Both of these sentences also need some rewording (It was at this stage, whilst conducting a final inspection of the ship, that Ritchie made the disturbing discovery of a large number of empty ammunition cases and stray bullets, indicating that the crew (who could not be found), had disembarked in a hurry, heavily armed.) and (As a result, Ritchie's small boat was hit worse than any of the others, being the sole target for the now angered garrison with machine guns, rifles and small artillery.) Done
12. Should this sentence (when she was sunk with hundreds of lives off the Dardanelles) not say in fact … when she was sunk with the loss of hundreds of lives off the Dardanelles ? Done

These are not all of the areas that could do with improvement so can I suggest that you please spend the appropriate amount of time carefully proof-reading the article – and once you are totally happy please let me know and I will reassess. As always the system gives you 2 – 7 days to achieve these adjustments but in some extraordinary circumstances a few extra days can be made available. Please let me know directly on my talk page if you need that extra time. Also if you have any other questions please come to my talk page and I will try my best to answer or assist. Cheers --VS ^talk 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit in response to GA reviewer comments

As nothing's happened for a couple of days, I've had a go at copyediting the article in line with the above comments - hope you don't mind. A couple of points:

• I changed the last sentence of the intro to say that Ritchie was "permanently disabled" - I think it reads better, but is this pitching it too strong?
• "enroll on..." rather that "enroll at" - do you agree?
• Do you have a citation for Rapidly rising in the navy due to keen intelligence and impressive strength? Statements like this should really be sourced.

more to follow... EyeSerene^TALK 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your contribution. I've cited the statement and agree that "on" is the better word. I think permanently disabled may be pitching it too strong, I don't know exactly how severe the after effects of his wounds were, only that they prevented his further military service and seem to have precluded a full-time career upon leaving the navy (although this last is not 100% clear). Please continue the good work and send anymore questions this way.--Jackyd101 08:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I removed the 'permanently disabled' statement completely, given your comment; I don't know if you can suggest of a better way to phrase it, but my feeling is that it's probably unnecessary anyway as the next para states the long-term effect of his wounds.

contd from above:

• after the breakdown of the Dupleix, am I correct in assuming (given the rest of the section) that Ritchie was not left solely with the Helmuth (he had brought other boats too)?
• as a result of juggling some of the sentences, I couldn't think of a way to keep the 10:00 am time reference for the beginning of the raid & still keep the flow. However I tried to retain it (after a fashion) by saying that work began on laying charges "shortly after 10:00 a.m.". You'll know the timings better than me, so this might now be wildly inaccurate...
• "He took the precaution of sending the Helmuth back". Is this back out of the harbour to rejoin the blockade, or out into the harbour, or somewhere else?
• I've read the bit where Ritchie got together a load of small boats to tie round his as meaning he commandeered boats from the harbour rather than used ones he brought with him. Is this correct?
• "These he secured around his launch..." Is Ritchie no longer aboard the Helmuth at this point?
• "With most of his crew grievously wounded or dead" This line implies a higher death toll than the 'one dead' given at the end of the paragraph. Is this accurate? I suppose that if the fatality was from Ritchie's crew then this is acceptable, but the wording could maybe be improved - any suggestions?

I'll have a look at the last section tomorrow. Regards EyeSerene^TALK 21:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

final part of copyedit:

I've finished going through the article - only one comment on the last section: I added that the morale-boosting nature of Ritchie's VC was Snelling's speculation (we have no way of proving this other that a direct quote from the Admiralty, which would be rather unlikely!). I'm assuming this is down to Snelling though - if not, please correct as you see fit. I've also marked the GA reviewer's comments as addressed. EyeSerene^TALK 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your hard work on this piece, it is very much appreciated. I have attempted to address your questions above, I don't have the Snelling book on me at the moment but I think your changes are correct. I appreciate your hard work and will notify the original reviewer and see if he will pass this as a GA.--Jackyd101 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - it is always a pleasure copyediting when I'm learning something new at the same time, especially about someone who doesn't deserve to be forgotten. I think your changes have made following the activity in the harbour much clearer ;) Good luck with the GAR - if you don't mind, let me know how we did! EyeSerene^TALK 17:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

Congratulations to all editors who assisted in this article. An excellent copy-edit on suggestions provided. It is well presented and passes the WP:GAC. I note for the record all of the editors that provided 5 or more major edits to this article as follows (with the numbers after user names indicating their total edits at time of final GA assessment):Jackyd101 (28), EyeSerene, (11). Editors may wish to cut the following template {{User Good Article|Henry Peel Ritchie}} and paste to their user page or other suitable location - which will provide the following template:

This user helped promote Henry Peel Ritchie to good article status.

Well done!--VS ^talk 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (kept)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Content check

Henry Peel Ritchie was the first naval VC recipient of the First World War. As explained in the article the VC was not gazetted for nearly six months. I have therefore added a footnote that the second VC award 15 days later to Norman Douglas Holbrook was the first gazetted. The date of presentation was 24 April 1915 not 25 November 1916 as originally appeared in the article. It would seem that some references have confused Henry Peel Ritchie with Walter Potter Ritchie who did receive his Victoria Cross from King George V on 25 November 1916 see The Times, Court Circular, 27 November 1916, p.11. I also amended the citation at the bottom of the page from The London Gazette 9 April 1915 to Supplement to The London Gazette 10 April 1915. Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Ritchie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041225165403/http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/stewart/edinburg.htm to http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/stewart/edinburg.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

German prisoners

The article says:

There were no signs of life on the target ships as Ritchie's flotilla moved uncontested into the port, and the shoreline was described by officers in the raiding party as "utterly deserted" and "cool and inviting". Shortly after 10:00 the raiders laid explosive charges on the abandoned Konig and Feldmarschall. […]

The raiders had in turn immobilised three large merchant vessels and destroyed several shore installations, as well as taking thirty five prisoners.

If the ships were deserted, than where were the prisoners coming from? --Andreas (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)