Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Collins-class submarine

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Collins class submarine

Nominator(s): -- saberwyn

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets WP:MILHIST's criteria for A-class articles. -- saberwyn 05:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've made the dashes, and referencing consistent. What is happening with the clarification tags though. There is also a succession of one-line sentences (paragraphs I meant) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing the en-dashing...I can never get it right. The article could probably get away without the two clarification tags, but I'm hoping to find more specific information for each (a more specific date than a five-year range for the cancellation of boats 7 and 8, and the name of the submarine in the 2003 wargame). I'll attempt to merge a few of the short sentances together over the next few days. -- saberwyn 06:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've also tried to roll a few sentance paragraphs into groups. However, some of them are there to be fleshed out in the future (for example, the "One major upgrade" line in "Sensors and systems" will be expanded to describe that upgrade when it happens, or the "only sub in 2009", which will gain multiple lines when the number of subs goes back up again, or a specific incident occurs which is attributed to the lack of Collins class subs running around.) while others (like the line in "Maintenance" about the cost thereof) I'm not sure how to 'paragraphise' because they don't appear to mesh well with the surrounding paragraphs. -- saberwyn 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - are you sure the RAN uses 'SSG' pendant numbers? Otherwise it's extremely good, and I will probably vote support after this point is addressed. Buckshot06(prof) 09:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes they do - see the list of ships on the RAN's website Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• CommentSupport: there is one dab link (Sven), but I think in this case it is okay as it is just a link to the name (?). The external links all work according to the link checker tool and the images all have alt text. No errors found with refs having the same content. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My intention there was to link to the disambig page, as the introductory paragraphs on that page indicate the Norse/Swedish origin of the name. If the link is believed to be problematic, it can be removed. -- saberwyn 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wobbly. I had a look at the lead. These glitches suggest that an independent copy-edit would be helpful in meeting the Class-A standard for writing.

• "... Collins; the other ...". So much nicer without the "with" connector.
• I've had my head sliced by nautical people for using "boat". And for a submarine?
• "conventionally-powered submarines"—please see the MoS on hyphens.
• "prompting widespread improvements in Australian industry"—err ... vague (which industry, what improvements?) and I hope it's referenced further down.
• Remove comma after "1980s" to avoid temporary ambiguity in the grammar ("as" is such a problem word).
• "throughout the various phases of their life"—various and throughout ...
• "foul play"—do you mean "conflict of interest"? A bit cryptic.
• "These" back-refers to ... "problems"? There are several plural nouns in the previous sentence.
• "Negative press resulting from this has led to poor public perception of the Collins class." Watch those back-references: what does "this" refer to? Perhaps "The related negative press has led to the poor ...".
• at which ... for which. Tony (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• ROKS image: tiny. This and a couple of others could do with a boost to 240 or 250px, or whatever you judge is best. Please note the recent change to policy at WP:IUP and at the MoS on image size, which no longer imply that default sizes are the norm. Tony (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • An independant copyedit would be beneficial. I have listed the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics.
  • I think I've dealt with the one in the lead, but in a different way.
  • And submariners will shoot you if you refer to their vessels as "ships". "Boats" is acceptable, because the original definition of a submarine was "a boat which may go under the water".
  • Removed.
  • From "Construction": The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500. I can't pull a citation for exactly what industries, but would assume construction, manufacturing, electronics, and software/programming off the top of my head. Specific companies are mentioned at the relevant points in the article.
  • Rewrote that sentance.
  • "Foul play" was the term used by the source, so I stuck with it. Examples of the relevant incidents during the selection process are detailed in paragraph 3 of "Funded studies": I don't think "conflict of interest" would be appropriate to describe any of these.
  • Yes. Altered to "These problems..."
  • Changed to "The resulting negative press has led..."
  • Now reads "It is expected that the Collins class will remain in service until the 2020s. Planning for a replacement submarine class commenced in 2007."
  • Considering all the problems and arguments relating to image sizes, user defaults, accessibility, etc., I would prefer to leave all images (bar the infobox, which by convention is set at 300px) standardised at default size until fixing them at non-default sizes becomes the norm. If an individual user needs more detail, they can adjust their default settings (registered users), or click on the image to access the preview or full resolution view (all users/readers).
• Feel free to intersperse your comments with my own. -- saberwyn 11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - One dab, external links look fine, alt text is present, couple comments on sources:
  • FAC people might protest at the "&"s in the refs, but that is your call. The relevant page is MOS:&.
  • A lot of citations to The Collins Class Submarine Story, though I can understand becuase that focuses on this class. Just a comment, no action necessary.
  • I don't believe that it is normal to have |format=Google Books and |accessdate= in references? I know that you used Google Books instead of buying/renting the book, but I have never seen it cited that way. The most I've ever seen is a link to the relevant GB page. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I was taught to cite sources using APA style at university (which I've tweaked slightly for my Wikipedia citing needs), which uses the ampersand (&) in citations when more than one author is involved. There are no ampersands in the prose of the article, which is what that section of the MOS seems to be worried about.
    • I'd like a little more diversity in the sources too, but The Collins Class Submarine Story is the only detailed and comprehensive work on the class published to date. I have tried to use other sources where possible.
    • I figured that if you can provide an external link to text of the the source, this makes it more accessible to readers seeking more information or verification (Very few libraries/bookstores outside Australia are going to stock this book). If an external link is used as part of a citation, it should have the date accessed. -- saberwyn 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying you shouldn't provide a link to the GB page, but I am saying that you do not need (Google Books) because it is a convenience link, and you do not need an access date becuase the URL is stable. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair point. Removed. -- saberwyn 06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I can confirm that The Collins Class Submarine Story is the only detailed account of the development of the subs, and it's a very well regarded book, so it's an excellent source. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Spot-check in the middle:

• "The age of the design was a concern"—could it be more explicit (do you have access to ref. 13?). Being foreign to the topic, I'm wondering now about use-by dates for such designs, and why.
• "The proposed design"—they're all proposed, at that stage, aren't they?
• "despite there being no accepted definition of"—noun plus -ing a bit clumsy ... "despite the absence of an accepted ..."? Do we need "also" there? Heck, sounds like a botched tendering process.
• I see "also" and closely repeated [22]. "On 9 May, the Australian Cabinet approved the selections for the funded studies.[22] They also decided that six submarines would be built, with the option for two more, and that all would be constructed in Australia.[22]" Why not: "On 9 May, the Australian cabinet approved the selections for the funded studies and decided that six submarines would be built, with the option for two more, all in Australia.[22]"
• "if the submarine project cost increased too much"—last two words are vague; did the report give an idea of what too much was?
• "started with a 4"—many readers won't have a clue. I'm guessing Beazley meant [A$4 billion], which could be inserted in square brackets if my hunch is correct. Tony (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Farncomb image drifts between sections. Not a great pic in quality terms, but a few of the others could still do with enlarging; the taller pics are fine—the untall ones need to sort of match them in area.

• • Now reads "The age of the early 1970s design...". The Sauro class had been designed in the early 1970s, and only major change offered in the 1983 tender was to increase the hull size and number of internal decks. My speculation is that the RAN were trying to replace a late 50s-early 60s submarine, so wanted something a lot closer to the cutting edge than the Italian proposal.
  • Changed
  • Changed. Botched? This was the first in a long string of issues with the combat system... it got so bad that the CS was abandoned and restarted from scratch.
  • Changed
  • No idea, because I have not read the report itself. The source I used didn't give a numerical value, but also states that Dibb recommended this despite specific instructions from Beazley that the submarine project was "off limits" for costcutting. My guess is that the working would be vague, to give both parties some breathing room.
  • Yes, AU$4 billion. Would that go inside or outside the quote marks?
  • I've shifted that image up a little, but I want to keep it in close proximity to the final paragraph of the "Operational history", which is what it relates to. The Operational histroy section will expand over the next 15+ years, so in a few years that section should be nicely walled in with text.
• Again, feel free to intersperse any replies. -- saberwyn 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. I don't know enough about it to offer useful comments on the content, but it appears to be well-referenced and written. However, I noticed several citation, verification, and clarification needed tags over the several days I spent reading it, so please fix those before it reaches A-Class. – Joe N 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As stated in reply to Yellowmonkey, the two {{clarification needed}} tags were used because, while the content currently in the article is cited and verified, more specific information not in the source was desired. I have replaced these tags with hidden notes in the body of the text.
  • The {{verification needed}} tag was because I was unable to access a particular web-based source to verify the statement at the time the tag was placed. That source has come back up (and has been replaced by a slightly more reliable link), so the tag has been removed.
  • There are no {{citation needed}} tags in the article. -- saberwyn 21:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I could have sworn I saw some. Oh well, it's good now. – Joe N 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a very detailed and comprehensive article which easily meets the A class criteria. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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.