Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Collingwood (1908)

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.

Article promoted by Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Collingwood (1908)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Featured article candidates/HMS Collingwood (1908)/archive1

HMS Collingwood was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships and frequently served as a flagship during her short career. Completed a few years before World War I, she played a minor role in the war with only participation in the Battle of Jutland enlivening the endless routine of patrols in the North Sea and training. Rendered obsolete by the ever-increasing size and power of more recent dreadnoughts, she became a training ship after the war until she was sold for scrap in 1922. The recent publication of her ship's log has confirmed what I've been otherwise been unable to document and I believe that she now meets the A-class criteria. As always, I'd like readers to look for stray usages of American English and unexplained jargon in addition to the normal things like prose, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

You can get a pretty good level of detail on the Grand Fleet's activities 1914-16 from Jellicoe's memoirs - see HMS Iron Duke (1912) for example.
Seems odd that the only 1 paragraph in the Jutland section actually discusses the battle - either add more context to the Jutland section (as I've done with Iron Duke) and split off the rest or remove the subheader altogether. I prefer to give a little more context, but it's a matter of taste.
Would probably be worthwhile to point out that after the 18 August operation, Jellicoe basically decided to abandon the southern end of the North Sea due to the threat of mines and U-boats unless there were good odds of a decisive engagement (again, see Iron Duke)
Got a Harv error in the ref section.
I spot an "armor" - watch out for ENGVAR
According to the caption on File:First battle squadron in the North Sea (April 1915).jpg, the third ship from the left is Colossus, not Collingwood - this also has a dead link from DANFS
You might want to add File:Map of the Battle of Jutland, 1916.svg. Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and link to Action of 19 August 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out Jellicoe's memoirs, so I've expanded that section quite a bit using it. I've also expanded the Jutland section as you suggested. ~~Don't know how you got a harv error since I don't use harv or sfn cite formats.~~ See how it all works and let me know if there's anything that I missed or need to further expand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nevermind that bit, Anotherclown fixed it earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support
- No dab links (no action req'd).
- No issues with external links (no action req'd).
- Some images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement)
- No duplicate links (no action req'd).
- Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
- Captions look fine (no action req'd).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
- Some inconsistency in presentation of name of class of ship with "St Vincent class" vs "St Vincent-class" (I don't know which is right but imagine it would probably need to be used consistently through out the article).
  - The hyphenated version is a compound adjective that modifies "ship" or "battleship". The unhyphenated version isn't a compound adjective and so lacks the hyphen.
    - No worries - I think you might have explained this to me in the past (I still don't understand it but no worries!) Anotherclown (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Some inconsistency in the capitalization of Zepplin.
  - Good catch.
- Perhaps wikilink "U-boat".
  - Done.
- Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your taking the time to look this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article at GAN in December 2014, and have looked at the changes made since.
image licenses are all ok.
no initial conversions of the guns?
- Not if they're linked.
3 inches (76 mm) roofs should be 3-inch?
- Indeed, good catch.
the lead could be expanded a bit with some detail. It is a bit short at the moment, I know she didn't have that exciting a service life, but some more detail on Jutland or the later Action would be good. Even that Prince Albert was on board at Jutland.
- Expanded a little, but there's really not a whole lot to work with since she didn't have a prominent role in Jutland and never even fired her guns in the near-battle on 16 August. If you've got any other suggestions, I'll be happy to incorporate them.
what was the Battlecruiser Fleet?
the Germans mustered 18 battleships and 2 battlecruisers what type of battleships? dreadnoughts?
Fleet on the 21st does this conform to MOS:DATEFORMAT?
- No, but the reviewers at FAC don't seem to be insisting on it.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think that I've addressed all of your points so see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now, supporting. Well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.