Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Neptune (1909)

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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Neptune (1909)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Featured article candidates/HMS Neptune (1909)/archive1

Neptune was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships. Before the First World War, she served as the flagship of the Home Fleet and as a testbed for an experimental gunnery director. Like the rest of the British dreadnoughts, she had an uneventful war, only firing her guns during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Considered obsolescent, she was scrapped after the war. As usual, I'm looking for any remaining uses of AmEng and for unexplained nautical jargon in preparation for a FAC. Any help in identifying infelicitous prose would also be very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

Images appear correctly licensed.
No DAB links Y
One of the links (http://dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Neptune_Class_Battleship_(1909)), is dead. It appears the link was changed to (http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/H.M.S._Neptune_(1909)), which is already in a different citation.
Prose suggestions:
"Neptune was accidentally rammed by the neutral merchant ship SS Needvaal in thick fog, but the battleship was only lightly damaged." Might want to say the country of the ship.
- I would if I could find it.
  - Maybe somebody with a Miramar account could look it up? Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Currently 18 souls have Miramar access. The Needvaal was of the Netherlands, of course, but you need a source to prove it. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Requested access to Miramar.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        No joy in Miramar, Plimsol website, available issues of Lloyd's Register on Google Books or the Dutch ship website referenced on the WP:Ships reference page. Suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"although neither can be confirmed" Might want to switch can to was.
- Analyses are still ongoing about which ship hit which during the battle, so I think that can be is better.
That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking this over.

Support ~~Comments~~

I might suggest putting some of the design differences between Neptune and earlier designs in the lead - the first superfiring turrets in the RN is significant, for instance.
I think the built and commission ranges in the class portion of the infobox are redundant.
"Aside from participating in the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 several months later, and the inconclusive Action of 19 August" - something is missing here.
"Neptune became a private ship on 10 March 1914 when she was replaced by Iron Duke and rejoined the 1st BS" - some odd tense stuff going on here
Wouldn't she have been a private ship since 22 June 1912? Also, where'd she go between then and March 1914 (which is to say, how did she "rejoin" the 1st BS if she was still part of it?)?
- Any clearer now?
  - Ah, I see what the issue was - she was still the fleet flagship after 22 June, just not the squadron flagship.
"...and the ship began a refit on 11 December." - need a citation here.
"After the High Seas Fleet reversed course for the first time," - can we get a time here? Especially since later in the sentence we have a "ten minutes later".
- Had to rework this a bit, see how it reads now.
  - Works for me.
Same comment on dreadnoughtproject as the Lion class FAC (or wherever that was). Parsecboy (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't quite do that, but I expanded the reference to give the Admiralty order # cited in ship's page on Dreadnought Project.com. Thanks for your thorough comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Colossus class diagrams Brasseys 1915.jpg - might need a UK tag, unless Brassey's was also published in NYC - I can't bring to mind if it was or not.
- Dunno if it was a wartime thing, but this edition was only published in London
  - Hmm, the 1913 edition credits S. W. Barnaby (Sydney Walker Barnaby, a son of Nathaniel Barnaby, I'd guess?) with the illustrations in the table of contents. I can't track down the 1915 edition, and the archive site cited for the image is blocked here at work, so I can't confirm it's the same, but I'd assume so, since the 1913 edition includes an identical illustration. According to the Wikisource page I linked, he died in 1925, so that puts it in the PD in the UK. Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good catch, I tend to forget which of Janes or Brasseys actually credits their sketch artists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Brasseys are hit or miss - the older editions tend not to credit the illustrators. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:HMS Neptune NH 58660.jpg - can we get a link to the source? Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed you can, my friend!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

Standard offer: If desired, I will happily convert all the <ref>Friedman (2011), pp. 62–63</ref> refs into {{sfn}}. Your choice.
- <Shudder> Thank you, but no.
  - I acknowledge that you declined. For conversational purposes only: there are four reasons to do so, but only two apply to this article. The first reason (which doesn't apply here) is to standardize the formatting. This one is actually quite nicely done. Many articles – especially longer ones – are very far from being so well-tended... The second reason, which doesn't apply here either, is that Ucucha's harv tools can help find citations without a book in the bibliography, and vice versa... The third and perhaps least important reason, which does apply, is simply to provide a clickable link from each citation to the corresponding bibliography entry. The fourth reason is that it provides a rigid system for other editors, who may come along months later, to follow paint-by-numbers. But see comment at the bottom (below).
This article mentions without explanation: "Around the time that the High Seas Fleet was reversing course beginning at 18:55"; Battle of Jutland says "Meanwhile, Scheer, knowing that it was not yet dark enough to escape and that his fleet would suffer terribly in a stern chase, doubled back to the east at 18:55". Could we put a few words in this article that summarizes Sheer's reason? Even "...reversed course to avoid contact.."
- Done.
Pardon my ignorance, but is it conventional in relevant military literature to refer to the Hochseeflotte as the High Seas Fleet? I kept getting the Grand and High Seas mixed up (reading from bottom to top). It would be much easier to keep track if it were Hochseeflotte (in the same way Panzerwaffe is not referred to as "Armoured Force").
- The German fleet is almost universally referred to in English-language sources as the High Seas Fleet, unlike the common use of German terms like Luftwaffe or Panzer Division from the 2nd World War.
"but the fleet did not participate in the ensuing Battle of Dogger Bank..." Why not? Too far away? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, clarified. Thanks for pointing out these issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nicely done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For my own curiosity, is there some reason that only one image has alt text? Its not like its a deal breaker, it just strikes me as weird. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally ignore alt text since there's no requirement for it at FAC. So I never even noticed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2017 (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.