Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Calliope (1884)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:47, 11 February 2010 [1].

---

HMS Calliope (1884)

Nominator(s): Kablammo (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/HMS Calliope (1884)/archive1

This small British cruiser, built for distant service in an empire at peace, was in the late nineteenth century among the most famous vessels on the seas. Sent to watch over German and US warships competing in a race for colonies, she was trapped with them in a small Samoan harbour by a violent Pacific cyclone. In a brilliant feat of seamanship, Calliope was the only one to escape being sunk or wrecked. Her memory is still kept green by the Royal Naval Reserve training center which bears her name. This article tells the story of her 64 years of service. Kablammo (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
• No dab links
• No dead external links, but please add dates of retrieval to some links that lack them (unless you believe that unnecessary).
• Please add appropriate alt text to all images. Ucucha 02:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Alt text was actually present but incorrectly formatted. Most is good but I'm a bit concerned about WP:ALT#Verifiability: Is it really clear to a non-expert that image 2 shows the starboard quarterdeck, for example? Ucucha 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your review, and fixing the formatting.
      • Retrieval dates are present in Sources; I have added retrieval dates to urls in the foonotes which are not listed in Sources. I have not added retrieval dates for print media which are identified in the Sources section, even if the footnotes contain a convenience link to a webpage which republishes the pages of the book or periodical.
      • The description for photograph 2 is verified by the title of the source image.
    • Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Please note that WP:ALT#Verifiability says the alt text should be verifiable for a non-expert who merely looks at the image. Ucucha 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I have modified the text. Kablammo (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I think it's good now. Ucucha 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

While I think the service section is pretty comprehensive, the design section is severely lacking. The ship needs to be more fully described even though most of the serious details belong in the class article. This article needs a brief summary describing machinery, armament, armor, etc. as have been present in the FA ship articles like SMS Moltke, etc.

Why the long period between her launch and maiden voyage? When was she laid down? When exactly did she become a drill ship? And did she keep that exact role for the duration of her time there?

It's not really relevant, but why were GAR and ACR bypassed to come directly to FAR? Other sets of eyes might have identified some of these issues earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Addressing the comprehensiveness issues:

• In the past I have notice a lot of overlap between design details in the class articles, and the design sections for individual ships. To me the details belong in the class articles. I wrote Calypso class corvette and C class corvette (of which the two Calypsos were a subclass) for those details, and transferred some of the text that originally appeared in this candidate to the class article. There is still an overview in this article, with more detail on armour, machinery, and armament in the infobox. This allocation avoids burdening down this general article on the ship with technical detail which can seem turgid to the general reader, while still making it accessible to the aficianado. I'm amenable to adding some more detail to the Design section, but want to keep it as an overview. I will however add some text on armament. (now done; see below)

• My preference is for a brief recapitulation of the infobox's information as part of the Design or description section, but that's just me, as I don't want to have to go to the class article to get basic stuff like armament layout, etc.

• On the other issues:

• I don't know why Calliope, the last of her class, took three years from keel to launch, and another three to completion. (Her sister and half-sisters took two for each.) For the reasons given below, I doubt such information is readily available. (no completion date available but did find commisssioning date and year of completion)
• Year laid down should be here, and I will add it. (done)
• The date she became a drill ship in 1907, which can be gleaned from the text; I will add exact date as given by Colledge. (done)
• I'm not aware of any different role while she was a stationary drill ship on the Tyne. There may be some more information available on the RNR unit there (I have seen one tidbit), but that would belong to the separate article on that unit.

In general, it is difficult to find out much about these ships. As stated in the cited Mariner's Mirror article, information on these and similar ships "is extremely vague", and Brassey's and Jane's "do little better than tabulate the main details". ". . . The author also states that "Comus and her sisters have been almost completely passed over in history." That has been mitigated by the 1963 article in the Mariner's Mirror (which I mined for details), but I have not been able to find out much more than is here. Kablammo (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a textual summary of armament, protection, and construction dates. As to the level of detail, FA criterion 4 states: "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Kablammo (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I understand that we disagree on the appropriate level of detail; that's fine because it's a subjective call.

Conversions are needed to metric units.

• Please see Wikipedia talk:WIAFA#Unit conversions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What caliber are the Nordenfelt guns, the machine guns and the torpedo tubes?

American acquisitions on the continent were complete with the Alaska Purchase back in 1867.

This is awkward and nearly every crew had been diminished or decimated by the loss of men killed by the storm

Fix the dab for armoured cruiser

Fix the page reference in the Lyon and Tute books; they abbreviate pp., but only one page is listed.

Location is needed for Amerika Samoa

Inconsistent capitalization in your sources that needs to be addressed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel, I much appreciate this careful further review.

• Metric conversions-- I have elected not to give repeated conversions for units after their first appearance. I have decided to remove entirely the steam pressure conversion, as the sentence flows better without it. It is also esoteric; while I have a few sources giving the steam pressures attainable for marine uses during this era, I doubt that tangent would mean much to all but a few readers. (And I have no sources for the machinery's theoretical maximum pressure in any event.)

Only the first time a unit appears does it need to be converted, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• calibers-- I do not have information on the calibres of the other weapons.
• American acquisitions-- I was thinking of control (the frontier existed until 1890), and have reworded it accordingly.
• diminished or decimate-- Yes, I agree. Latter deleted.
• armoured cruiser dab-- it does not go to a dab. Did you mean to have it go directly there w/o redirect? If so I have done that.

Yes, I meant a redirect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Tute page nos.-- fixed (thank you Sandy), but I am no longer citing this source. Removed.
• location needed for Samoa -- I have generally located it.

I meant for the book, which has been done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Capitalization-- While I believe I have used the capitalizations as given, I will audit the sources again. I changed Colledge from template to hand-formatted version, to conform to the others, which do not include the unnecessary proprietary OCLC link.

Thank you for your edits as well. Kablammo (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to image reviewer: In checking links I came across this photograph, which I am considering substituting for the somewhat similar one in the left margin. Could you please review the rationale for the new one, and if insufficient, would {{Template:PD-UK-unknown}} would be acceptable? Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image review
  • In response to above, there are a couple issues. First, {{PD-UK-unknown}} doesn't seem to exist, but I would prefer {{PD-UK}} over what's there now. Additionally, I think you'll need to provide more information in the Source field about the periodical in question, so people can more easily verify that its copyright has lapsed. I don't suppose there's a chance of nailing down the exact issue it was scanned from? Can we contact this Steve Johnson?
  • Alt text looks good.
  • File:HMS Calliope in port.jpg is PD (work of US Navy), looks good.
  • File:HMS Calliope stbd quarterdeck.jpg is PD (expired copyright), looks good.
  • File:HMS Calliope 1880s.jpg is PD (work of US Navy), looks good.
  • File:Illustrated London News.jpg is PD (expired copyright), looks good.
  • File:Helicon 16.jpg could be problematic. I realize the author is unknown, but where did you actually get it? Web search? Scan? The Source field should list where you got it. Looks good. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks interesting—will return later with a prose review. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. I am digging into the one scanned from a periodical by Steve Johnson-- it looks like it was published before 1900, but I'm still tracking that down. The Helicon image, poor thought it is, shows the ship in her later career. I e-mailed the Reserve unit at HMS Calliope (shore establishment) and they sent me this image, with the knowledge it would be used on this article. It clearly dates from 1951 or before, as that was when the ship was moved from the Tyne for breaking. Kablammo (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't understand what "RNR unit" meant in the Source. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put links in the Source field now. Thanks. And I just did a test-- the PD-UK-unknown is in use on Commons. Kablammo (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm surprised not to find "Calliope had 90 pounds (41 kg) of steam in her boilers".

Get rid of the unencyclopedic colloquialism. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gene, that is from the source. I assume it is PSI, but I am not a boiler engineer. Perhaps, as you suggest, I should get rid of it entirely--90 psi would have been more significant then, than now. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so its just a reading comprehension problem then. I'll take care of it. Note that if you don't understand what your sources are telling you, then there are likely to be a whole lot of Wikipedia readers who don't understand us if we mindlessly parrot the same nonsense. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gene, "best practice" marine steam engines ran at 77.4 psi in 1881, and 158.5 10 years later, so I'm pretty sure what this figure means. But the source is not explicit. Kb

Don't know why you have such incredible (i.e. unbelievable, not to be trusted, because they'd never be making even one single measurement of the gauge pressures involved to that precision) over-precision in those numbers you give here. But interpreting what our sources tell us is something that we simply have to do all time. Just because a source doesn't explicitly remove all ambiguities in the meanings of the words it uses, doesn't mean that we cannot figure out what they mean and act accordingly. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The data are from a chart assembled by Robin Craig, and the precision is from the source. They are consistent with a few less precise figures found in the Institute of Naval Architect's "Transactions". As it does not seem to me that steam pressure is highly useful to our readership (there being nothing to compare it to, without excessive explication), I have deleted the figure. Kablammo (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
  • Can you please italicise your book titles that are links in the short notes? And put quotation marks around the article titles? This will make them consistent with the non-linked titles in the short notes.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Kb

I believe this is now complete. Thank you for your review and requests. Kablammo (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Look-through by Awickert (talk)

Every point addressed. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Worked through some spelling/grammar/style things. I've found 2 items that are unclear so far: "forced draught" - this should be defined, or should have a stub made and wikilinked. I see that HMS Collingwood (1882) defines it and has a redlink. "revolutions" (in reference to propeller speed) - is this revolutions per minute? I'm probably done for tonight, but I'll be back to finish it up, Awickert (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I put in links for both. I had linked "forced draught" in the text of the class article, but forgot to do so here. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Wow, that was lickety-split! Awickert (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC) "lickety-split"?? Is that what one of these is to a geologist? Kablammo (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Usually. But lately I've been spending too much time in the Quaternary. Awickert (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Very au courant of you. Kablammo (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Finished going through the article and all the stylistic issues I could find. There are 3 more words or phrases with which I am unfamiliar, and that may be unfamiliar to the audience in general: latter: I'm guessing that this is part of the hull by the rudder, but I'm not sure and Google doesn't find it immediately handling relieving tackle on her tiller: tackle = rope and tiller = the connection between the wheel and rudder, I think, though I'm not 100% sure this attracted the custom of the British Admiralty: What does "custom" mean in this context? I'm guessing "attention". Also: The British Empire was the largest on Earth, and in order to protect that empire and its trade routes, Britain had the largest navy. Great Britain assumed the role of peacekeeper on the world’s oceans, and the Royal Navy was the instrument by which the Pax Britannica was kept. This probably needs some references (largest empire, largest navy, global peacekeeper, Pax Britannica). That does it for my concerns, I'm a "support" once these are done, Awickert (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Every concern of mine has been addressed, the prose is nice, and the presentation of the heroics at Samoa is engaging. But my support can't cover the content. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine. Comment. Fine article, but a few concerns:

• Why was the ship built? The link to the design section of the Calypso class corvette articles doesn't seem to give this information either. Why did the British build these ships? What military requirement were they fulfilling? What threat were they meant to counter? Under what naval construction program were they planned and constructed? Which government figures were their advocates?
• An article stub on the Samoan crisis needs to be started, it one hasn't already, and then a "see also" or "main article" link added to the top of the "Service with the fleet" section or "Samoan crisis" subsection as discussed below.
• Since most of the "Service with the fleet" section deals with the Samoan crisis, it probably needs to have its own subsection. I take it that details of the rest of its service with the fleet are sparse? Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Replies Thanks to all who have commented. Responses to both previous and current suggestions:

• Weapons calibres-- RC Butcher and I have had a colloquoy on my talk page; he believes the Nordenfelt machine guns likely were 1" models. Similarly I believe it is likely the torpedos were 14" Whiteheads, which were common in RN ships at the time. In both cases we would need reliable sources: I will look again at all my sources.

found size of torpedo. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• latter-- the ground, i.e., the reef. Will clarify.

done. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• relieving tackle-- ships of this era did not have power-assisted steering. Ships had once been steered by tillers, and in extreme conditions lines were used to restrain the tiller. The steering wheel was developed, which was used to turn the rudder; and Calliope had a double wheel, which allowed more hands to turn it. In extreme conditions the wheel could break free of their grasp and turn freely (causing injury to those handling it), so relieving tackle below was also used. I will consider how to address this point, but probably in a textual footnote.

created article on relieving tackle and linked it. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• custom-- patronage; from which "customer" derives. (Awickert-- a usage perhaps more Paleogene than Quaternary).

OK - then it is just my ignorance, thanks. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• British empire text-- I will supply sources-- unfortunately, my resources may be more in the nature of popular history than scholarly sources, but the points should be uncontroversial.

done, principally using the Massie book. Kablammo (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• why ship was built-- imperial policing, trade protection (mentioned in this article already), "send a gunboat" diplomacy. May address in class article instead.

Sentence added. Kablammo (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Samoan crisis-- no article yet, and no mention even in History of Samoa. It is touched on in Samoan Civil War, which is problematic. 1889 Apia cyclone also mentions it. I think it would be too far afield from the story of the ship itself to give more detail here on the crisis or the storm (especially given the existing article on the storm), but I will at least give a clearer link to the cyclone article in the Service section here.

tried a slightly more explicit link to the storm article, but otherwise made no changes. Kablammo (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Service with the fleet -- I considered having subsections, but decided against it. You are correct that there are few details. Calliope went straight to reserve from completion in 1884; commissioned in 1886, sailed to Pacific 1887–88; returned 1889–90 and went back into reserve for 7 years, and was a tender from about 1897 until 1905, when she was stricken. As far as I can tell the ship had no active service other than a few years in the late 1880s. Rather than have one-paragraph subsections bracketing the Samoa service, I decided to handle the service all together. If you feel sectioning is important I have no strong objection.

Kablammo (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Kablammo. Regarding Pax Britannica, I guess I'm short in my history of the British Empire as well as the nautical terminology! Maybe it isn't as important as it's obvious to someone who knows about the topic. But if you want academic sources, just send me a wikipedia-email as usual and you'll get them in my reply. Awickert (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer-- we'll see if there are any questions about the ones I'll use. Kablammo (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments A brief look finds work to be done on the references:

• There is no such thing and never has there been a "Navy Historical Center". See the note on the bottom of this page for giving proper credit to Naval History & Heritage Command. This applies to the photos as well.
• You need citations for the infobox.
• "Wilson, "Glory for the Squadron".. I don't see the point in repeated links to the PDF in each cite when it's listed in the sources. Same applies to "Warships of the World to 1900.
• In the sources section use authormask=2 for authors with more than one work listed. --Brad (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

• I see it should have been "Naval". I will change that on images. Where a document bears a publisher name, however, I'm not sure that it should be changed to the new name-- I don't think we do that for books.

• Are infobox cites now a requirement? They are not something I can add right now.
• I have chosen to link web resources directly from footnotes so that the reader (of the footnote) is one click away from the site, rather than two. Some of the web links are google images of print sources; these links also are added for reader convenience.

• I am unfamiliar with the "authormask", or with what it does.

"Real life" has intruded and I will be away from a computer for perhaps a week--I am not sure. I can make a few edits from my phone but will not have all of the tools. Kablammo

• Oppose, 1a. I stopped reading halfway through "Service with the fleet", but lots of attention to detail and prose work is needed. The article is peppered with MoS problems (too many for me to fix briefly), grammatical inconsistencies, and plenty of opportunity for more elegant writing. Examples follow—please treat this as a sample list, not a comprehensive list. Given your shortage of free time, I recommend withdrawal for a good prose and MoS workshop with an experienced FA writer from the ship project like Bellhalla, TomStar81, etc.

• I have to say the opening para of the lead is not very cohesive. There are some facts(?) hidden in the subtext that need outright explanation to the layperson. For example, someone might read that the corvette was also a cruiser because she had engines—is that true? You use the terms interchangeably and it gets confusing to say the least.
• I've read it again and I think most of the confusion originates with this sentence: "She was among the last of the sailing corvettes but supplemented her sail rig with powerful engines." It's the "but" connector that stops me dead in my tracks. Why is the second phrase contrary to the first, as the "but" suggests?
• Second para in the lead: Again the connector seems awkward. Replace your quote with something shorter for a test—doesn't "where" seem more logical? Ex. "She was known for an incident where she was ..."
• "Calliope and her sister Calypso" Are we confident readers understand the concept of sister ships well enough that we don't even write "sister ship"?
• Inconsistent hyphenation: Why "C class corvette" and "C-class vessels"?
• Is 6" the standard style? In related articles, we seem to spell out "inch". In fact, you vary within the article.
• More elegant writing is needed in many places where you're needlessly wordy. Ex. "The British Empire was the largest on Earth, and in order to protect that empire and its trade routes, Britain had the largest navy." Why not simply: "The British Empire was the largest on Earth, and Britain had the largest navy to protect it and its trade routes."
• "by which the Pax Britannica was kept" No explanation or link?
• "This great storm increasing in ferocity over the next two days." Grammar? And.. please no easter-egg links.
• "her propeller was making 74 revolutions" Why link to RPM but not write "per minute"?
• "On her port and only 20 feet (six metres)" From MoS: "Render comparable quantities, mentioned together, either all as words or all as figures"
• "This attempt was called by the American commander on the scene 'one of the grandest sights a seaman or anyone else ever saw; the lives of 250 souls depended on the hazardous adventure'." More MoS problems—if a quotation includes punctuation, it needs to go inside the closing quote.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Amending my statement above—perhaps digging in and shuffling through the issues is a better use of time than withdrawing and coming back. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through and made several edits to address my items, some of which may be subjective. Please review my changes, particularly ones that affect ship jargon and units of measure. I'll return later today and comb through it again to look for any further issues, but I think we're close. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support now. Look, it's magic! You don't even have to do anything and I go from opposing to supporting. Anyway, I fixed the items I saw. I see more things I would change but I'm hesitant to keep pushing the merry-go-round until everyone falls off or gets sick. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.