Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment/2010/Promoted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main Project Page Talk
Things you can do
Information and sources

[edit]

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.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of battlecruisers of Japan[edit]

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)(Prof) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan]


An article concerning the constructed and planned battlecruisers of the Japanese Empire. This is the final article in my work on the Kongo class and Japanese battlecruisers. It's also my first-ever list, so I'm wanting to get a high-calibre review finished before I take it through the FLC process so as to hammer out all the bugs. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conomming, but it's my first list too, so any comments related to the FLC criteria would be greatly appreciated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of quick comments:
    • You've got "armour" in the boxes but "armored cruiser" in the prose - check for uniform spellings.
    • I'd suggest a citation for the one note - it might be common knowledge that Kaga was converted, but better to play it safe.
  • That's all for now, I'll give it a closer read tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I can't tell whether eight-eight fleet should be capitalized or not, but if it is, then all three words should be capitalized. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Parsecboy about AmEng vs. BritEng ... "modernization", "armour", etc. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Cam wrote this in Canadian English, which is sort of a mix of AE and BE. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Canadian English is fine with me in other articles, but what's the connection between Canada and Japanese battlecruisers? Canada made critically important contributions in WWII of course, but not in that theater (sorry, theatre :). - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I always put a note on my desk to write in AmEng, but I always end up writing mostly in CAnEng. So I'll go through and see what I can fix. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate a quick check of my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Including all the work Dank put into copyediting. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: Largely looks fine to me, as such I focused on minor style issues which might get brought up at FAC:
    • no dab links, no issues with ext links (no action required);
    • images lack alt text, which you might consider adding (suggestion only);
    • I think that per Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers as figures or words "twentieth century" should be "20th century";
    • Hammel is listed in the References, but doesn't seem to be specifically cited;
      • Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi, Cam, can you please check this again, as I'm not sure if it has been rectified? From what I can see Hammel is still in the References but is not specifically cited. I think that if you don't cite it specifically, you should put it in a Further reading section;
    • the page ranges in the citations should have endashes per WP:DASH;
    • for consistency of presentation style, "Garzke and Dulin, p. 84–85" should be "pp. 84–85";
    • the year ranges in the titles in the References section should have endashes (e.g. Schom and Stille works);
    • most of the ISBNs are presented with hyphens, but a couple are not (Gardiner and Lacroix). These should be consistent;
    • do you know the publisher location details for the Jackson and Schom works?
    • in the Design B-65 class section, "...these nighttime strikes" ("nighttime" - is this correct? I'm not sure, sorry, but it just doesn't look right to me);
    • in the Kongo class section "attack on Pearl Harbour" (I think this should be "Pearl Harbor" - as it is a proper noun, i.e. place name, it would have to be spelt "Harbor" regardless of whether the article is written in British or Canadian English. I might be wrong, though).
      • I can't speak to that really, it's whatever Brits write. Brits write for instance "River Plate" where Americans and Argentines write "Rio de la Plata" (with or without the accent on the i), so we say "River Plate" in BritEng articles. - Dank (push to talk) 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Inserted: I was confused by all the "-ours". Cam is shooting for AmEng here. I try not to have an opinion, in general, on British naming conventions; I'm confused enough by Wikipedia's American naming conventions. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't sure, so I had a bit of a hunt around the MOS. Wikipedia:MOS#Geographical items states, "[p]laces should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article". Given that the article is spelt Pearl Harbor, I feel that it should be presented as such. Happy to discuss pros and cons of this approach, though, of course. Ultimately, its a minor point and I won't oppose over it. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • could a citation/reference be provided for Footnote 1? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Can you add a citation to "Similar to the German Imperial Navy (Kaiserliche Marine), the Japanese envisioned and designed battlecruisers that could operate alongside battleships in the line of battle to counter numerical superiority." Other than that, I can think of no other citation related issues.
Fixed (I believe). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to add in the launch dates to the list?
I'm not entirely sure. I could, but I think it'll seriously mess up the arrangement of the other columns in terms of how they fit. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - only a few minor comments: Support
    • The citation error tool reports two errors (Stille, p. 8 - Multiple references contain the same content and stille8 - Multiple references are using the same name);
      • I'm a bit confused by what this means...Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Essentially it means there may be an error with one (or two) of your named refs - ie you may have used the same name twice etc (fairly minor issue its true). The citation error tool can be accessed by clicking 'edit' at the top of the article, then the 'cite' drop down button, click 'Error check', select all three radio buttons and hit 'check', and a citation error report will be generated. I believe this tool may not be available unless you have certain preferences installed so if you don't have it I'll see if I can fix the problem myself. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2nd sentence in lead is a little repetatve: "The battlecruiser was an outgrowth of armored cruiser designs, which had proved highly successful against the Russian Baltic Fleet in the Battle of Tsushima, which ended the Russo-Japanese War." (two 'whichs'); and
    • Overall, this is an excellent article and I intend to support once these issues are resolved. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • All my points have been resolved so I'm happy to support now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

SMS Kronprinz (1914)[edit]

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Yet another German battleship, this one was the fourth and final König class ship. She was undamaged at Jutland and fought the Russian battleship Tsarevitch during Operation Albion. She's also one of the three BBs still on the bottom of Scapa Flow. I wrote this article just the other day, it passed GA this morning, and I feel it's ready for A-class. Thanks to all who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I reviewed this for GA and I feel that it meets the project's A class criteria. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, but I am not seeing the name of the commander/captain (names of the officers would be nice, too). I'd also like to see more info in construction section: not technical specs, but why was the ship ordered, was there anything innovative in the construction, and such. Also, I am not familiar with the {{HMS|Cardiff||2}} template; it needs to be disambiguated to HMS Cardiff (D58) somehow. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen the name of the ship's captain or any officers anywhere; we generally only know them if they were particularly notable. For instance, SMS Von der Tann's captain at Jutland was Hans Zenker, who went on to serve as the CinC of the Reichsmarine after the war. As for officers, the only time I've ever seen someone other than the captain mentioned was in Richard Stumpf's diary.
    • There wasn't anything specifically innovative about this ship apart from her sisters. I usually keep most of the technical stuff on the class page - the ship articles should just have a short run-down of the technical stuff along with any unique information (see SMS Derfflinger for example). There just doesn't seem to have been anything about this vessel that was different from her sister ships. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment mostly A1, pretty good! Complaint about inflation. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes: "Adjusted for inflation, Kronprinz cost $295,395,429 in 2009 dollars." which conversion measure did you use? I hope you used a capital goods measure. Share of GDP won't work here, since it is German GDP in question. I get quite ansty about this because inflation is hard, battleships aren't purchased with the same kind of money-over-time that say, sausages for eating by private individuals are.
      • I just used {{inflation}}. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You'd want to remove that. You're using CPI inflation on US dollars. CPI measures stuff like a bundle of sausages, bread, milk and rent. Battleships aren't bought by people buying sausages, milk, rent. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citations look good
    • Bibliography: Subtitles normally take a colon, not a semi-colon, was a semi-colon specifically used on the Title Page of the work? "Preston, Anthony (1972). Battleships of World War I; An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Battleships of all Nations, 1914–1918."
      • More than likely I forgot to hold shift when I typed it in. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bibliography: Was the volume number specifically part of the title? The page to check for this is the title page (not the fly page), "Staff, Gary (2010). German Battleships: 1914–1918 (Volume 2)."
      • It's actually German Battleships: 1914-1918 (2), but I got complaints at a FAC about it, and was told I should add the "Volume" to make it clear. But see here for the cover page. It's identical on the two following pages. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bibliography: ed would normally be Ed. or ed. here, "Sturton, Ian, ed (1987). Conway's All the World's Battleships: 1906 to the Present."
    • Citation: Sturton (1987) in the citations, if citing a named entry written by someone else, should actually be Foo, Bar, "German Battleships of Designation X" in Sturton (1987), pages. ?


Comments (not urgent)

  • Someone recently has been changing "formally commissioned" to "commissioned"; that seems okay to me if it never or rarely happens that people consider the boat commissioned when it hasn't been. Otherwise, "formally commissioned" makes sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've poked around and can't figure out whether we should write mark, gold mark, Gold Mark or Goldmark. It usually isn't italicized. The name "gold mark" became more common during and after 1914, to distinguish it from the "paper mark", which is right on the edge of the time frame of the relevant paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AP and Chicago (and other guides too, though I don't claim to keep up) are tough on acronyms; AP says "avoid alphabet soup". It's okay to use them when everyone else does or when writing something out over and over would be tiresome. I'm not going to take a position very often on individual words, unless I can find support one way or the other in a style guide; I'm just saying we should abbreviate less often than we do. - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're referring to AP and semi-AP - I used them because AP is a pretty common abbreviation for armor-piercing in naval literature. I'm fine with not abbreviating it though. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked many times (with no answer) where we're going to draw the line on anthropomorphic language. One reviewer laughed at the FAC for HMS Speedy; we're going to get more chuckles if we keep using language for ships that goes way beyond language that you'd use for a car. (I'm talking here about "[The ship] claimed to have made one hit". I'll do my best to defend the line wherever we draw it, but we need a line and some justification from sources for the line.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rewrote this one and it won't be a problem at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LQ, we put the period outside the quote marks if it wasn't in the quoted material. (It wasn't in this case, I've got that book.) If anyone thinks that looks weird, I'll be happy to talk about where that comes from. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with that. I've always been told by the grammar nazis that punctuation always goes inside the quotation marks, but it always seemed odd to me if the question mark wasn't part of the quote, for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved questions

  • I don't understand this part; when was it that Kronprinz stopped firing? "Between 20:00 and 20:30, Kronprinz and the other III Squadron battleships engaged the British 2nd Light Cruiser Squadron as well as the battleships of the Grand Fleet. Kronprinz attempted to find the range by observing the British muzzle flashes, but the worsening visibility prevented her gunners from acquiring a target. As a result, she held her fire in this period." - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kronprinz didn't fire. I meant engaged as in she trained her guns on the British ships, not that she opened fire. Is there a way to make that clearer? Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try something with "trained her guns". - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I have read through this word for word and struggle to find any issues at all. IMO this is an excellent article, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan]


Almirante Latorre was Chile's flagship and the most powerful dreadnought in South America from the 1920s to the 1950s. She served with the UK's Grand Fleet in the First World War as HMS Canada (1913), but was bought back by Chile in 1920. The dreadnought was primarily used as presidential transport during the 1920s, and participated in a major mutiny/rebellion in 1931. Deactivated in the 30s due to the Great Depression, she served through the Second World War – even garnering an purchasing offer from the United States after Pearl Harbor – and was active until 1951. She was scrapped in Japan starting in 1959. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: (apologies for the long list, most are just suggestions)
    • two dab links reported: [1];
    • no ext links, so none to be checked (no action required);
    • are there any images that could be added, even just to the infobox? (not a requirement, just a suggestion);
    • in the lead, "...quickly the instigator of a mutiny which the majority of the Chilean fleet quickly joined..." (needs tweaking due to repeated word "quickly");
    • "...three now-outmoded pre-dreadnoughts" (I think the use of "now" here creates a tense issue, perhaps you could just say "obsolescent"?)
    • "...now acquiring dreadnoughts, Chile responded..." (again the use of "now" I think is a tense issue - I might be wrong, though. I'd suggest just removing "now");
    • mixture of US and British English spelling - for instance "modernization" (US), "traveled" (US), "armour" (British) - please check for others also as I might have missed some;
    • sometimes you say "United Kingdom's Royal Navy" (e.g. in lead) and then "British Royal Navy" (e.g. in Background section) - seems inconsistent, only a minor point, though;
    • in the Construction section, "The ship that would become Almirante Latorre[N 2] was awarded to Armstrong Whitworth on 25 July 1911" - this sentence might confuse lay people, the ship was awarded (i.e. "given") to Armstrong Whitworth? "The contract to build the ship that would become..." might be a clearer way of phrasing;
    • in the Construction section, "...but despite a strong sentiment within Chile to sell the dreadnoughts..." (can you explain this sentiment, at the start of the paragraph it seems like there was concensus, at least in the National Congress to buy the ships, why did this then change?)
    • I think a linking clause is needed before this sentence: "On 9 September 1914, Almirante Latorre was purchased by the United Kingdom for use..." (At the start of the paragraph - i.e the topic sentence - the ship is being christened, but then suddenly it is being purchased by the UK. As such a linking clause such as "However, due to..." or something similar seems necessary here);
    • "...various capacities with the Grand Fleet during the war, including the Battle of Jutland." (I don't think the "various capacities" agrees with "including the Battle of Jutland" - i.e. the Battle of Jutland is not a capacity. Perhaps reword to "served in various capacities with the Grand Fleet during the war, and took part in a number of engagements including the Battle of Jutland";
    • in the Chilean service section, "...speech to senior naval officials to ensure them that his new government..." (I think "ensure" should be "assure");
    • "...After refueling at Port of Spain on the 28th..." (not sure about the use of the ordinal suffix here, per WP:DATESNO);
    • "Two 33-long-ton (34 t) tug boats were carried on the battleship's deck so they could be used in the harbors at Punta Arenas and Valparaíso" - is there any information about why this was necessary?
    • In the Mutiny section, "Just before 0000 on 2 September..." might be best to say "Just before midnight..." here as many readers won't recognise this;
    • In the Mutiny section, "...By the 6th..." (ordinal suffix as per above);
    • in the Later career section, "...and the Vice Admiral heading Chile's naval commission" (I think "Vice Admiral" should be lower case per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms;
    • in the Later career section, "...on the 25th" (ordinal suffix as per above);
    • "...and was taken to Yokohama, arriving there on 30 August 1959" - might need to specify "Japan" here as it makes it clearer (although I would hope most of our readers would know this already, some might not);
    • in the Footnotes, is it possible to add a citation for Footnote # 1 (the cost conversion)?
AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)>[reply]
Thanks AR, I think most of these are fixed, besides the one I don't have information on (the tug boats). I don't want to change 0000 because I'm afraid people will mistake the date – I think some people might think midnight of the day following. I removed the cost conversion per Moreno's FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Yet another great article Ed, but I think a bit more work is needed to get this to A class:
    • If no PD photo of the ship in Chilean service exists, I'd suggest making some use of File:HMS Canada 1914 - 1918.jpg
    • "Almirante Latorre was quickly the instigator of a mutiny" - the ship's crew instigated the mutiny, not the ship itself, and 'quickly' doesn't make much sense in this context
    • It would be helpful to clearly state in the second para of the 'Background' section that Argentina decided to purchase dreadnoughts - this is a bit unclear at present
    • Parliaments don't "give" money to government agencies - it's 'allocated'
    • What's the relevance of the weights of the destroyers and submarines ordered alongside the battleships? This seems to be unnecessary detail.
    • 'The ship' wasn't 'awarded' to the builder - the contract to build her was what was awarded
    • Did Greece want one or both of the battleships? The second last sentence of the 'Construction and purchase' section refers to a 'battleship' being sought and the last sentence refers to 'battleships' being considered for sale.
    • The material on the mutiny seems over-long; I'd suggest editing this so there's a tighter focus on the role played by this ship's crew
    • 'fortify' is an odd word to use in regards to the US Navy seeking to purchase this ship - I'd suggest something like 'reinforce' or 'bolster'
    • Am I right in reading the second para of the 'Later career' section to say that the battleship was reactivated at some stage after the 1930s? This is what's implied by saying that she was the Navy's flagship and 'active'. If so, can you provide the date she was returned to service? Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick! I think I've addressed all of your concerns barring the mutiny section and the last – I'll try to chop at the mutiny section asap, and details of her later career are ridiculously sketchy. The official history from the Chilean Navy's website doesn't even mention anything between the 1929 refit and her scrapping, while Schenia only mentions the United States purchasing attempt. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments largely addressed, and I'm sure that Ed will chop back the mutiny section as promised above Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate a quick check of my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Support
    • The lead seems a little awkward. Specifically this part: "Construction began soon after the ship was ordered in November 1911, and was approaching completion when she was bought by the United Kingdom's Royal Navy for use in the First World War and renamed HMS Canada. After being commissioned in September 1915, Canada served in the Grand Fleet for the duration of the war and saw action during the Battle of Jutland." Might be reworded thusly: "Construction began soon after the ship was ordered in November 1911, and was approaching completion when she was bought by the United Kingdom's Royal Navy for use in the First World War. Commissioned as HMS Canada in September 1915, she served in the Grand Fleet for the duration of the war and saw action during the Battle of Jutland."
    • The first paragraph in the 'Background' section seems a little abrupt... could more be added to it (or some linking phrases used)?
    • The use of parenthesis in this sentence seems unnecessary to me: "She was officially ordered on 2 November 1911, and was laid down less than a month later (27 November)", might it just be reworded "laid down less than a month later on 27 November?; and
    • Did Canada see any further service during the First World War after Jutland? I accept the bulk of this can be covered in the HMS Canada article but I believe this section could still summarise this service a little further. Anotherclown (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I didn't see your comments on my watchlist. Thanks for pitching in and helping, Dank. As to your last point, AC, I believe that the Roal Navy was kept on patrol after Jutland. I'll ping Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) just to be sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have little significant detailed info on the activities of the RN dreadnoughts after Jutland. She's not mentioned by name in the official history after the battle so I'd have to presume that she patrolled and trained with the rest of them. I did add some extra info from Burt to the article so see how that reads. But on a more serious note, why hasn't HMS Canada been merged into this article? I see little reason for it to exist as an independent article, especially given the paucity of info available on her wartime experiences.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Sturm! That's a good question – I found the articles split, so I was going to leave them like that. Would we have enough coverage on the ship's WWI service as it stand right now? Most books I've gone through on Google Books only mention her participation in the battle. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • What I've added to this article is the bulk of what is known about her service during the war. Her squadron provided distant cover during 2nd Heligoland, IIRC, but I have no idea if she herself was there or refitting. The same is true for most every British BB during the war. I think that you can profitably merged the Canada article into this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No worries, if the info doesn't exist thats no drama IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall this is an excellent article. I still think the first paragraph in the Background is a bit stubby but that shouldn't hold up the review. Happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 07:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese battleship Kongō[edit]

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)(Prof)


Kongō was the first fully-modern battlecruiser of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and the last capital ship they had constructed outside of Japan (built by Vickers in England). This article has gradually undergone a rewrite over the last few weeks. Passed its GA earlier this week (thanks to Jim Sweeney for reviewing it), and has had some minor copyediting done since. I believe it meets the A-Class Requirements. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support, with some commentary below,
  • The lead image is the same as the one for the class's article. Perhaps it would be better to interchange it with another image from the article?
Working on that. Cla68 has promised photo uploads. Once they're here, I'll shift the images around significantly. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 16 August 1913, Kongō was completed and formally commissioned into the Imperial Japanese Navy. Twelve days later, she departed Portsmouth for Japan. — Not that important, but formerly it's written that the Kongō was laid down at Barrow-in-Furness. Was the ship commissioned in Portsmouth? When did she move from the former to the latter?
We must assume fitting out happened at Porstmouth, though none of my sources say when. I've added a note that she transferred to Portsmouth for fitting out. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 3 October 1915,Kongō and Hiei participated in the target-sinking of Imperator Nikolai I, a Russian pre-dreadnought captured in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War that had subsequently served as a Japanese battleship. — To a non-layman such as myself this sentence actually came off as slightly confusing. I don't know what target-sinking is (well, after looking up the article for Imperator Nikolai I I was able to guess), so while it's clear that the article had been captured by the Japanese in 1905 this is only after you mention target-sinking. So, for someone with no prior knowledge on the topic, it seems as if the Japanese sunk a Russian ship (although, the Japanese and Russians were not at war), and only then does it specify that it had been captured by the Japanese. Like the last comment, this is borderline ridiculous, but I figure any detail is worth mentioning if it's unearthed.
I understand what your issue is, but I have to confess that I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. Prose-wise, I think this is the best we can do without getting into the overly-convoluted minutia of Imperator Nikolai I and the Russo-Japanese War. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the defeat of the German East Asia Squadron by the Royal Navy at the Battle of the Falkland Islands in December 1914, the need for combat operations by the Japanese Navy lessened" — The second part of the sentence doesn't read well to me. Perhaps it should read, "...there was a lesser need for Japanese naval operations in the Pacific." I'm not sure, I've never been good with these type of things.
Changed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excepting the above pedantry, this reads like a great article and certainly within the guidelines of milhist's a-class.

JonCatalán(Talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the caveat that I have had some previous input to the article.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Launched on 18 May 1912 before transferring to Portsmouth, Kongō's fitting-out began in the summer of 1912.[6]" I assume that is Portsmouth, England? If so, can we wikilink that? Bonewah (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC) --I went ahead and fixed that as I found a wikilink for Portsmouth later in the article, so I moved it to the first appearance. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"By, Kongō's secondary armament was reconfigured to eight 6-inch (15 cm) guns, eight 5-inch (13 cm) guns, and one hundred and twenty-two Type 96 antiaircraft autocannon.[12]" By what? Some date I would guess. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved Questions

  • We usually don't mention Sanskrit word origins ("vajra"), but if the Sanskrit word is particularly relevant to the Japanese word and you want to include it, then it would be best to explain the relevance. Btw, Conway's (p. 234) says that all 4 ships in the class were named after mountains, but it doesn't say which mountains; can anyone confirm or deny, and if true, do we have a link for the namesake? - Dank (push to talk)
I included this particular one here because this one wasn't named for a mountain, though Haruna was (which I mentioned in that article). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they have been called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin." Conway's says: "The design is usually described as a battlecruiser version of [Erin]." Should we always attribute it when a noted author says some variant of "People say such-and-such"? Anyone? This language was in Japanese battleship Haruna, which passed FA recently. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note, FYI: Chicago (16th edition) is now out, and it's very influential among publishers. They're recommending "US" instead of "U.S." (and UK, and two-letter state abbreviations). Many people follow the 2009 AP though, which recommends "U.S." in text and "US" in headlines. "US" is much more common outside the US. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
updated to 16th ed style. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there's this much text repeated from a sister ship's article (Haruna), some will suggest that a hard look is needed to see if we can move the overlapping text to the class article. I don't have a position. - Dank (push to talk)
In the cases where it's repeated, it's because they did the same stuff. I figured it was a waste of time to rewrite entirely when they were involved in the same action. Hiei and Kirishima mostly operated together, while Kongo and Haruna deployed in a pair. I figure keep it in each ship article. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For stuff that this ship has in common with Haruna but not with the others, I agree, repeat it in the two ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC we decided at Haruna's FAC that muzzle flash is not a great link for "flash"; I'm not sure that we know what "flash tightness" is supposed to mean. Let's either find out, or lose it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Forgot about that. I think we've dug this issue endlessly w/o success. I'll lose it. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 00:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with "First Reserve"; a quick definition or a link would be nice. Or, "reserve" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your source says "The thickness of KONGO's horizontal armor over her magazines and machinery spaces is increased." That's different from "Kongō's horizontal armor near her ammunition magazines was strengthened, and the machinery spaces within the hull were increased." Is there a different source that supports your statement? - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's back in Ottawa at the moment. I'll have it by Tuesday. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K, source 2 says armour over machinery was increased, not machinery itself. My bad. I'll change it. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching quickly through for "Kongō" gives me a lot of hits ... that sometimes means it would be better to replace some of them with "the ship" or "the battlecruiser" or "she". - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to change. I'll see what I can do. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kongō bombarded Christmas Island on 7 March 1942, then returned to Staring-baai for 15 days of maintenance and rest.": not clear whether the ship or the crew is resting. The source says "Although on standby alert ..., the crews are allowed some rest and relaxation." "Rest" seems too informal to me ... maybe "15 days leave on standby alert"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Changed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suffered several near misses but remained undamaged": a ship can "suffer" near misses if it's damaged by shell fragments, but "suffer" is the wrong word if there's no damage. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Escort-Carrier Group they happened upon. I've reworded it to be more specific. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the quote marks off "numerous hits"; if you add them back, direct quotes require a citation at the end of the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. My bad. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done with copyediting for now. - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... dry-docked for a large reconfiguration of her anti-aircraft suite. Four 6-inch guns and a pair of twin 25-mm mounts were removed ...": Not wrong, but I don't usually hear "large reconfiguration", since "large" could possibly mean anything from replacing 20% to replacing 100%. If "most" (say 50% to 75%) of the anti-aircraft guns were replaced, it would be better to say that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removed "large" from the sentence. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "separate dyes were introduced for the armor-piercing shells of the four Kongo-class battleships": any idea why? - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of radar fire-control, it made targetting easier, especially in large surface-actions, since you could tell which shells were being fired by your guns. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like everything is done except for finding a source for "the machinery spaces within the hull were increased", or rewording that in line with the ref you've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual disclaimer. Everything's been resolved, nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

There's numerous inconsistencies with the armaments and Conway; I would reference Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946 p. 173 for the WWII stats, and I think you could add another heading for the 1937 refit. The secondary armamaent was originally 16 6" guns (16x1) not (8x2) & it appears most were replaced by 5" DP guns by 1944. Kirk (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Stille's accounts of armament changes for the kongos, since those are the ones I have access to on a permanent basis. Fixed the 8x2 mistake. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • in the 1942: Early War Service section, this sentence needs a citation: "On 20 September, the fleet was ordered to return to Truk Naval Base in the Caroline Islands (now Micronesia)."
    • I think that the subsection headings are not correctly capitalised in the Service section. For instance I think "1942: Early War Service" should be "1942: Early war service";
      • They seem to have all been fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • sometimes you use spaced endashes (e.g in the 1942: Early War Service section) and then unspaced emdashes (e.g. 1929–1935: Reconstruction section). These should be consistent;
    • Boyle appears in the Citations but not in the References;
    • some of the citations have years but some don't - is there a reason for this?
      • The ones by multiple authors usually
        • Okay, I'd suggest making it all uniform, but it is not really a major drama. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in Citation # 4 you have "Parshall, Jon; Bob Hacket..." in italics but in Citation # 5 and 8 you don't;
    • are Parshall, Hacket etc the authors of the website? If they are they shouldn't be presented as they are which currently makes it look like they are the publishers (or in one instance that they are the Work that the page is a part of);
    • Morison appears in the References but you don't appear to specifically cite the work;
    • same as above for the work by Frank;
    • same as above for Moore;
    • the Advisor script reports a possible error with the ISBNs for the Schom and Wilmot works;
      • Both fixed
    • here is an inconsistent representation of accessdates (i.e "Retrieved 2010-09-10" and "Retrieved 26 February 2009"AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe fixed
  • Can you please check my last couple of unstruck comments above? Otherwise looks fine and I'd be happy to support. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

Nominator(s): White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after spending several weeks working on it in my sandbox. I recently moved it it the main space. Having asked for an assessment, the list was initially given start-class designation as I needed more citations in the lead. I've corrected that and cited the whole list and User:Woody (The one who reviewed the list for the B-class criteria) now says that he sees no outstanding issues with the list and encouraged me to send it to ACR. So here I am again! I've done this before with the List of battleships of Austria-Hungary and have modeled this list off of that of the Austro-Hungarian and German ones. Any comments wold be appreciated! Thanks :)White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe hazegray.org meets the requirements to be a reliable source, so all of the citations to this will have to be replaced.
    • The Brandenburg class section has too much information on the ships' German service and should be cut down.
      • Buggie has cut down on the section a but. If there needs to be more trimming, feel free to let me know.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's the purpose of noting that the ships served in China and 1901? It sort of comes out of nowhere, and isn't directly connected with the sale of the ships in 1910. Also, I suspect that OSN isn't the source for that information. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There needs to be more information on Yavuz after the end of the war - it essentially goes from 1918 to being scrapped in '73.
    • Why are the photos being forced to 200px?
      • IDK, but what is wrong with doing so. Buggie111 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I know, the general standard is to leave them as thumbs, which allows editors to view them as they have set their preferences (I have mine set at the maximum of 300px). You should really only force them to be larger if it's a small image (like a map or something) that would be hard to see at a smaller size. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead image has to go - no proof that the author died more than 70 years ago (or its status as PD can be verified in some other way, such as the date of publication in Germany).
    • The article needs to be read through - you've got a number of typos I noticed on just a quick glance ("BRazilian", "Reshas-I-Hammiss" instead of "Reshad-I-Hammiss", etc.)
  • That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple more little things: the citations to Conway's 1860 should mention all three editors, not just Gardiner (or otherwise remove the other two from the full citation). It's a little confusing to have Fatih's displacement in the box, along with the note saying her exact displacement is unknown - it might be better to leave the box empty with just the note. The closing coord can count me in support once these two minor issues are addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the issue with Fatih. As for Conway's, look at the citations! There is one set that mentions all three, (1860) another set that mentions two authors (another Conway book) and there is one Conway book that only has Gardiner.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 03:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • It needs some copyediting, and some additional info on Yavuz would also be welcome, as Parsecboy noted.
    • The original lead image was certainly published in late 1914 or early 1915 at the latest, because it directly refers to the Ottoman Empire's entry into the war ("Die Türkei schlägt los" means "Turkey hits out"), so it should be PD (at the very least, PD-US-1923-abroad).
    • I am surprised that the chief source on the contemporary Ottoman navy, the Ottoman Steam Navy has not been used at all. This led to at least one notable mistake in the article, for the Ottomans were certainly not engaged in any naval antagonism with Italy or Austria-Hungary in 1913-14. I would feel much more confident in supporting promotion if such a specialized source were used. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Technical stuff
    • No dab links or broken external links.
    • All but one image are missing alt text. Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment
    • This is a very worthwhile article and looks pretty good IMO, with a decent lead, consistent detail for each class of ship, and thorough sourcing; however I'd like to see all outstanding comments above acknowledged/actioned before supporting.
      • Everything is fixed in the above comments other than the addition of that book. I'm currently working on a solution to that as well.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What of Parsec's question re. the lead image? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Replaced with a photo of the Goeben.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 13:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, that should satisfy things, though I wonder if it might be better swapping that with the one of Goeben arriving in the Bosporus as the latter is 'busier' and therefore looks better as a big leading image, while the shot of Goeben on its own is okay as a thumb in the body of the article. Just a thought, doesn't affect my support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the liberty of copyediting for prose/grammar, let me know if I've inadvertently altered the meaning of anything.
    • I assume the citation "Gardiner and Gray" refers to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860—1905 but the Bibliography section only mentions Gardiner as editor -- should be consistent.
    • Also for consistency, Johnston should appear in the Bibliography section and be cited in short form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Cite 12 is incorrect. Page 16 of Ottoman Steam Navy does not reference the ex-German battleships in any way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at page 16...the whole page. I'll go back and take another look though :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until I am able to get a copy of the book again, I have removed the citations Strum.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. So now what's the supporting cite for their service in China, etc? You'll need to remove all that unless you can support that statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added page 66 from Hore. Hope this is good. Is there anything else that you need addressed?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose only per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedits look fine to me thanks :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support w/ comments:

  • "...so the Ottoman Navy Foundation was established with the aim of purchasing new ships through public donations rather than having them built locally." → What does "public donation" have to do with where they were built? Do you mean constructed by foreigners, or you mean that the ships were financed through donations? Later, you elucidate that it means the latter, but that still leaves the issue that the two parts of the sentence are unrelated to each other. So, instead of "rather" it might be better to use something like "while". JonCatalán(Talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were financed through public donations ;)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this ACR winding down?--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it's bound for FLC. As usual I'm concerned about the amount of information provided, whether too much or not enough. I'm not sure if HMVS Cerberus should included because I'm not sure of the exact legal relations ships between the Colony of Victoria's navy and the Royal Navy. Thoughts on this issue from Australian editors are welcome. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Division (2010). p21 can be individually linked to in the reference section using ...: p. 21. This cleans up the "Individual page can be found here..." issue? All cites and refs look good. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Can see nothing that concerns me --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: (technical)
    • two dab links reported: [2];
      • Fixed
    • ext links work (no action required);
    • images lack alt text, you might consider adding it (suggestion only);
    • I think File:Cyclops class monitor diagrams Brasseys 1888.jpg needs the PD-1923 tag rather than the life of author + 70 years (the author's name isn't stated, so there is nothing to support this claim);
    • other images seem correctly licenced to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my concerns have been addressed and the article has been thoroughly copyedited. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

HMS Liverpool (C11)[edit]

Nominator(s): SoLando (Talk)

I believe the article satisfies the requsiite criteia to be considered for A-class; however, I', likely oblivious too any prose issues the might have (or might be identified ;-). Outstanding concern that I have is source-related: note 42 and note 59; although there is explicit attribution, I'm skeptical that their inclusion would be accepted at an FAC. I have replaced naval-history.net with alternative sources due to enduring doubts at MILHIST about its reliability (pretty onerous task!) SoLando (Talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Sorry, but I don't think that this article is at A class standard yet.
    • No problem. I hope the issues raised can be addressed sufficiently to persuade you to support the article ;-).
    • The prose needs some work and much of the lead is confusing. Some examples are:
      • "she served in the Second World War, with the Mediterranean Fleet from 1945 until her decommission" - this needs to be be re-worded as something like "she served in the Second World War in the Pacific, Atlantic and Mediterranean. Following the war she was a unit of the Mediterranean Fleet from 1945 until she was decommissioned"
        • EnigmaMcmxc has since edited the lede.
      • "the first warship to do so at the shipyards for a year" - "the first warship to be launched at that shipyard for a year" perhaps?
        • How does "Liverpool became the first cruiser launched at the Fairfield shipyard since Norfolk and the first warship to be launched there for a year" sound?
          • That's a bit wordy, and does it need to be in the article? One major warship a year per shipyard doesn't seem an unusual rate of production for the era. I'd suggest cutting this outright unless it has particular significance. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The distinction of being the first cruiser to be launched at Fairfield in nearly a decade does probably merit inclusion...I've deleted the other. SoLando (Talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article contains unnecessary detail. For instance, the themes of the speeches given at her launching ceremony and an incorrect story about her commissioning date in the Times don't add much value.
      • The ceremonial details are probably expendable - removed. I would prefer to at least retain the Emerald element as it does have some validity - no less legitimate than noting X battalion relieved Y battalion. That said, it would probably benefit from the context provided by the (apparently) planned original date of commission as Emerald left the station in '38. What do you think?
        • It seems to have been removed now. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article contains seemingly unnecessary provisos - for instance, why does it need to be said that a shot was "reportedly" fired over Asama Maru's bow, that the official history of Australian in WW2 "claimed" something and that "The Admiralty announced" the number of casualties when she was attacked? Surely these facts can now be said to be true or false?
      • The first passage is extracted from a contemporary report...while it is apparent that Liverpool did indeed fire a warning shot, there appears to be no "recent" source that confirms that, for whatever reason. I've dropped the "claimed", replaced it with "said"...that was me being overly cautious. Is that ok? Again, there is no recent source that provides casualty figures for the attack, hence this passage. I've reworded.
    • What makes the journal of a midshipman a reliable source? His claim that the petrol explosion on 14 October 1940 was equivalent to "ten torpedoes" is plainly wrong - there wouldn't have been much left of the ship if she'd suffered such an explosion.
      • I do admit to being apprehensive about the use of a primary source, but the contemporary journal is mostly used for non-controversial detail: Carley floats being prepared, the arrival of certain ships, the burial of the dead. In my personal opinion, it's an insightful contemporary account that has been accurately represented in the text, without any interpretation or synth'. In regards to the intensity of the explosion, it's not a claim per se, but a subjective observation as to how the explosion felt to him at the time. I agree that it might be interpreted differently by some readers. What would you recommend? Omit?
        • Yes. Midshipmen are, by definition, among the least experienced (and often among the youngest) sailors on their ship, so their experiences shouldn't be treated as reliable sources in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've excised the apparently ambiguous material, but the remainder is arguably legitimate. He would clearly have been aware of the preparation of the floats and arrival of Gloucester, would have observed or been told of the burial of the dead (and their number), while the RDF claim is explicitly attributed to him. SoLando (Talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement that Liverpool began "two-year period of refitting and maintenance at Rosyth that did not end until after the war" in August 1942 is contradicted by the later statement that the refit was completed in July 1943. It would seem that the ship was then placed in reserve as she couldn't be manned rather than that work continued on her. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Damage repairs were completed in 1943. Rearranged order of sentences for greater clarity. I'll reread the article later tonight, however, if there are still prose issues it will need a copyeditor with a fresh perspective. Thanks! SoLando (Talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My above concerns are now addressed; great work. It's also great to see so much effort being put into an article on a cruiser - these were important ships for their day. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Citation # 45 (The Shipbuilder and Marine Engine-Builder, 1946, p. 500) is completely in italics - should this be so? It doesn't look right to me;
Grah. Formatted. Very sharp eyes! SoLando (Talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the titles in the Reference list should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. For instance Roskill "The war at sea, 1939-1945" should be "The War at Sea, 1939-1945" (there are other examples that also need tweaking e.g. Connell, Edwards, Geoge, Haggie, Hague, Leggett, Smith 1981);
Grah. Formatted. Overlooked due to C & P conveniance ;-)
    • I think it is usually common when using the short citation style just to use surnames, rather than using surnames and initials/first names. E.g. see Wikipedia:CITESHORT#Shortened footnotes. I'd suggest removing them as the first names/initials clutter up the short citations and IMO defeat the purpose which is to enable the reader to quickly determine the source;
That is true. It's a discretionary style I became quite accustomed to over the years on here and it has, I guess, become ingrained. I'll reformat to conform to the currently prevailing style...it will probably take much longer to adjust, though ;-). SoLando (Talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation # 40 (Read, A.D. (1949), Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London: Royal Institution of Naval Architects, p. 100) does not appear to conform with the citation style of the rest of the article. It also does not appear to be included in the References section. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a quandry when it comes to this journal's style, in that it's from a limited preview GB search. Will move. Thanks! SoLando (Talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: before taking to FAC (if that is where you are thinking of heading), you might consider adding OCLC numbers to the works in the References section that are too old for ISBNs. These can be found by searching here: [3]. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Now Supporting, good job. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Questions Opposing until the concerns are dealt with ... just a little bit more needed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • My British English isn't great, but shouldn't that be "north-west England" instead of "north west England"? - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The cruiser instigated a diplomatic incident with Japan in January 1940 when she intercepted and boarded the liner": A cruiser boarded a liner? My preference is that we draw a line somewhere on anthropomorphism and stick to it, otherwise things get weird. Any thoughts guys? What do we say ships can and can't "do"? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Is "subclass" better with or without a hyphen in BritEng? There's no hyphen in AmEng. - Dank (push to talk)
  • We seem to be pretty consistently going with the hyphen when "X-class" precedes a noun. I made the change ... does anyone want to argue against the hyphen? - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Ordered under the 1935 estimates": I'd explain "estimates", but a link would work. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Before her departure, Liverpool visited her namesake port in January 1939.": the first phrase needs rewording. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "... Liverpool worked up in the Mediterranean for two months ...":I don't know what "worked up" means. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Liverpool reportedly discharged a warning shot ...": The article in Time magazine says it happened; does "reportedly" mean there's reason to doubt them? - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The Government of Japan condemned the operation as an abuse of belligerent rights and formally protested the action, which further escalated tensions between the two countries. Yet despite increased public hostility towards Britain, the Japanese and British governments sought to defuse the dispute through negotiation.": You probably don't need to mention the hostility after tensions ... depends on whether you're saying something new. - Dank (push to talk)
  • More in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will respond once you've completed your review. Don't want to disrupt any editing! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 17:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "transporting 1,200 reinforcements, airmen, and RAF provisions": Are the airmen included in the total of 1200? If not, do you have an estimate for the number of airmen? - Dank (push to talk)
The estimate in Titterton seems...ambiugous and could easily be exclusive to non-RAF reinforcements. If so, then then number of RAF personnel isn't specified. SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, removed the number; if someone really needs the number, then we'll try to find a better source. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "protected from the 29th" is perfectly good BritEng for "protected starting on the 29th", but in AmEng that means you're being protected from some unit called the 29th. I changed to "starting on". - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Liverpool's losses in the attack had amounted to three officers and 27 ratings killed and 35 wounded.": "killing ratings" means something completely different over here. Can we use a term everyone will understand? - Dank (push to talk)
The alternative would be be "sailors" or "seamen", but that might in itself be deemed confusing when following "officers". Would you agree? SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "3 officers and 27 crewmen killed and 35 crewmen wounded"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made the edit but you can change it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you've got 5 citations to "The Journal of Midshipman W. P. Hayes, RCN". You'll have trouble with the FAC requirement (which we're still working out and getting tripped up over) of a "highly reliable" source. My personal position is that we should be more lenient with certain kinds of unpublished material, and if it's true as it says that all the midshipman kept diaries which were often checked and compared against each other, that's a good argument for plausibility, but you're going to need more than plausibility for FAC. Have there been any discussions about this source? - Dank (push to talk) Striking this and the previous mentions of FAC because I might have misread your introductory comments ... FAC's a headache, and I'm more than happy to focus on just doing what's needed for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The group that included Liverpool positioned itself west of Bear Island, in the Barents Sea, as cover and to rendezvous with the cruiser.": "Cover" means to me that there was artillery on the island that could engage the enemy if the group was attacked, is that right? - Dank (push to talk)
In this instance, the term is synonymous with "screen" and "escort". The latter is used throughout the article, so cover was chosen for variation and to reflect the source used. SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the previous sentence says "joined a group of warships that was to have escorted Trinidad". Removed "as cover"; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and was used by the Senior Officer, Reserve Fleet, and his staff.": If this is the same thing as "the Senior Officer of the Reserve Fleet and his staff", that would be better. - Dank (push to talk)
This would have been an official title. The alternative might convey the suggestion that he was the commander-in-chief of the fleet. SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added quote marks: "Senior Officer, Reserve Fleet" and his staff. We need either that or a link to avoid the ambiguity. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's an "accommodation ship"? If that's not something official or customary, could we just say that the ship served as accommodations? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Okay done with the copyediting, your turn. In many cases I was probably changing perfectly good British English into something that I think, I hope, everyone understands, but correct me if I'm wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - some minor comments, mainly concerning grammar:
    • The lead is a little choppy in places and a number of short sentences could probably be joined. Specifically I would suggested rewording "An aerial attack on 14 June 1942 during Operation Harpoon proved to be the ship's final combat of the war. For the duration of the conflict, Liverpool underwent repairs and refitting at Rosyth, Scotland." to "An aerial attack on 14 June 1942 during Operation Harpoon proved to be the ship's final combat of the war and for the remainder of the conflict, she underwent repairs and refitting at Rosyth, Scotland."
    • Some minor grammatical issues IMO. For instance: "Her captain transferred in late October to the battleship Ramillies; command of Liverpool was assumed by Captain A.L. Poland on the 27th." This could be reworded easily to something like: "Her captain transferred in late October to the battleship Ramillies and command of Liverpool was assumed by Captain A.L. Poland on the 27th."
    • Use of the phrase 'would not be' in "The ship's presence would not be disclosed until September when the US Navy Department released a list identifying 12 ships situated in various ports" seems incorrect (in terms of tense), and could be changed to "was not disclosed".
      • I disagree, although "was not disclosed" is also fine. This tense is used by many good writers, I see it all the time, but only in the middle of a narrative series where you want to jump ahead briefly and then return to the previous point in time. I agree that it's a good idea to take a hard look when this tense is used because it's often misused, but Solando used it correctly both times here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries mate, I'm no expert anyway. It just sounded wrong to me . Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again the phrase 'would not be' in "Although repairs at Rosyth were completed by July 1943, sufficient personnel would not be assigned to Liverpool until late 1945" could be changed to "were not".
    • The sentence "Liverpool returned to service in October 1945 to join the 15th Cruiser Squadron of the Mediterranean Fleet, serving mostly as a flagship." could be reworded as "Liverpool returned to service in October 1945, joining the 15th Cruiser Squadron of the Mediterranean Fleet, in which it served mostly as a flagship." (or something similar).
    • "more than 12 months elapsed before the vessel had been completely dismantled." could be reworded as "more than 12 months elapsed before the vessel was completely dismantled"
    • Overall the article is a little repetative, as you use 'Liverpool' in too many places. You can vary this by using terms such as 'the ship' or 'she' etc. Anotherclown (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - looks like all of my concerns have been taken care of. An excellent article in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 07:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I'm still not real comfortable with lists and would like opinions regarding the amount of detail in the lede and in the class paragraphs. Are they appropriate; if not what needs to be added or deleted? Does the lede cover everything that it needs to? Thanks in advance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Support I think the lede is ok apart from the definition of battlecruiser could be added into the text instead of as a note which at the beginning of the article does not look right. The sections I understand are just supposed to be summary's but the length depends on what they did during their service. To keep them all more or less the same size perhaps a bit more for the Queen Mary class. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical stuff
    • Fixed one dab link so all good there, and no external link issues.
    • No images have alt text, but all appear appropriately licenced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I'll mostly address prose and refs, since lists aren't my thing either.
    • In the section on Invincibles, The two surviving ships had an uneventful time for the rest of the war conducting patrols of the North Sea.... "had an uneventful time" sounds a wee bit on the informal side to me.
    • In the Indefatigable section, it says that the former "blew up". I think we can be a bit more specific than that. It's not like the ship just spontaneously exploded. The German battlecruisers hit her quite a few times. I'd add something mentioning which ships sank her (since we know for sure. I'd check w/ parsec about that one)
  • Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks pretty good to me, but I think the lead is too long. It looks like six paragraphs, but per WP:MOSLEAD, it can only be a maximum of four. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my concern has been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good, I like the length and coverage of the lead. Some food for thought:
    • That is one ugly template at the lead, and I think a picture would do better. Is there any way to convert that into a 'normal' template that goes at the bottom?
      • Maybe, lemme look into it.
    • Links for Tiger and Hood in the lead?
      • Added.
    • Do we need the bolded names in every section?
      • Removed, thanks to Dank.
    • Should it be renamed to "List of battlecruisers of the United Kingdom" to be consistent with "List of battlecruisers of Germany", etc.?
      • I don't think so since the navy and government names remain the same. Germany and Russia both had different names and lists could be legitimately made for x of the Soviet Navy vs. x of the Imperial Russian Navy while leaving the more comprehensive x of Russia
    • Anything on Hoods inter-war activities? The 1929 refit would probably be worth mentioning, at least. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, sure, I've got a daily record of her activities. Not really sure the refit is the most significant thing though. Let me think on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments:
    • "they were least successful against enemy battleships" - all three British BCs were destroyed by their German counterparts, not BBs.
      • Quite right; I've rewritten that bit
    • The following sentence about cordite handling/etc. seems to come out of nowhere and doesn't flow logically from the previous sentence.
      • I'm not sure that I follow, but see how it flows now that I've clarified things a little bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "rated as battlecruisers only in reference to the more" - maybe "comparison" instead of "reference"
      • Already done by one of my many helpful copyeditors.
    • "The three Courageous-class ships were converted to aircraft carriers during the 1920s and only Repulse, Renown and Hood served in the Second World War" - this makes it sound as though the Courageouses were withdrawn from service before WWII.
      • Fixed.
    • Link "war in the Pacific" to Pacific War
      • Already done for me.
    • Any way to beef up the Invincible class and Queen Mary sections? They look rather short and sad compared to the other sections. One suggestion for QM is to spell out some of the differences between her and her half-sisters of the Lion class. All that's apparent right now is the slightly greater displacement.
    • I don't know if it's just me, but the bottom line of the box for the Indefatigables isn't showing up.
      • I know, I can't figure out how to fix it.
    • You have a mix of the ship name by itself and "the" ship name (the one I noticed was "the Princess Royal) - this should be consistent.
      • I caught a couple more.
    • There are a couple of very long paras that could be split, the second paras in the Lion and Renown class sections are the worst.
      • Done.
  • The article is in pretty good shape all-around, I'm just nitpicking to help ensure the article is up to snuff for FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I'm almost finished copyediting. Other than the things that Sturm mentions he's thinking about, it appears to me he's fielded the comments from Parsecboy and Ed, except that I agree with Parsecboy about the "cordite" sentence. But I'm not experienced with WP:FLC, we'll see how it goes. Per this screenshot (courtesy of User:John), AWB automatically checks for duplicate links ... that would be a lot easier than checking them by hand as I've been doing, so I'm not checking duplicate links any more. If someone could get these before these articles get to FAC, the noms would probably shower you with barnstars. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 10:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Deutschland (1904)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Yet another German battleship - this was the lead ship of the last class of pre-dreadnoughts. I wrote this back in April and it passed a GA review at that time. I think this article is pretty close to A-class standards, hence the nomination. I look forward to working with the reviewers to ensure that this article meets MILHIST standards. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical stuff
    • No dab links, broken links or missing alt text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- well written/cited/structured; just a couple of queries/suggestions:
    • After joining the German fleet, Deutschland was tactically assigned to the II Battle Squadron, though she was the fleet flagship and so not subordinate to the Squadron commander. -- do you mean "technically", rather than "tactically"?
      • Either would work; I chose tactically because that's what the source says. "Tactically she was assigned to II Squadron." Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deutschland was slightly grounded in the Baltic... -- would "partially" be more correct than "slightly" (sounds better to me, anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- "... Mausoleum of Prince Heinrich in Hemmelmark": According to the German Wiki article, Hemmelmark is an estate. Shouldn't it therefore read ... Mausoleum of Prince Heinrich on the Hemmelmark estate.? Sorry for this nerdy question. Well done! MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I had no idea what or where Hemmelmark is, so I guess your suggested wording would be better. I substituted it for the old version. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re A1, citation presentation, all good. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking those, Fifelfoo. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • image is appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • Citation # 23 "Tarrant, pp. 246–7" I think should be "Tarrant, pp. 246–247" for consistency (e.g. #14, 15, 19 etc. use the full numbers);
    • two of the sources (Groner and Tarrant) in the References section have hyphenated ISBNs, but the others don't;
    • the Herwig source should have an endash for the year range. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All issues fixed, thanks for finding those. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 07:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courageous class aircraft carrier[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've incorporated many of the suggestions made on the related articles and I think that it's ready. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—A1, citation presentation quality:
    General Sub-edit: Friedman, Norman (1988). Extraneous full-stop in title. Nailer, Roger (1990). Is Gardiner perhaps Editor?
    • Friedman fixed; Gardiner is the editor, that's the way the template displays it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Short citations: Jenkins, front endpaper. Could specify p. front endpaper for clarity? "Britain 2-pdr [4 cm/39 (1.575") Mark VIII"]. apparent failure of wiki-markup.
    • Fixed.
    All else good. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical stuff
    • No dab links or broken external links.
    • Alt text missing from infobox image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I did some copyediting and spotted no glaring errors. Image concerns: I can't find the lead image here, so I can't ensure that it is from the USN. File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg has the same problem, except I can't find it on their site period. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NHHC website does not have a good selection of the Navy's photographs available. But if it's got a NH# I'm fully prepared to believe that it was scanned from a book.
  • Comments - from the top, section by section:
    • Infobox and Lead
      • The Infobox puts their service careers as 1921-1945, yet the subpage for Furious has her being commissioned a full four years earlier, at which point she was considered a hybrid aircraft-carrier/cruiser (she's properly considered the first aircraft carrier ever built).
        • I don't think it's necessary to split out Furious from her sisters in that regard. Infobox is intended for a quick summary. Whether she's the first aircraft carrier built is certainly disputable and largely depends on your definition of an aircraft carrier. Many seaplane carriers were in service before she was, some with flight decks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The infobox also says that they carried 48 aircraft. Do we know what the breakdown of their standard air-group was, or was it constantly shifting?
        • That's discussed in the air group section.
      • Somewhere in the lead, I'd link Courageous class battlecruiser.
        • Done.
      • Mention in the lead what year Furious started her reconstruction
        • Done.
      • Third paragraph, mention and link that it was U-29 that sank Courageous
        • That information is too detailed for the lede; it's presented in the paragraph about her (brief) service in WW2.
          • You never know. When I wrote Yamato class battleship, I mentioned that Archerfish sank Shinano in the third para of the lead. You don't have to go into all the gory details, but I'd mention that it was U-29. Your call though...
      • Same thing with Glorious, mention that it was Schanhorst and Gneisenau that sank her.
        • See above.
    • Careers as battlecruisers
      • Mention what year the Washington Naval Treaty was signed (we know it's 1922, but it's good to repeat those things outside the lead for context's sake)
    • Conversions
      • The second paragraph of Furious's conversion mentions that the arresting gear weren't used for slowing down aircraft, and then the third paragraph says that no arresting gear were fitted. My guess is it's just a terminology confusion problem, but either way it's confusing the hell out of me.
        • Clarified.
    • Description
      • The ships had a complete double bottom.[11][12] is one of the shortest sentences I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Could it somehow be combined in the previous sentence just so it's not so abrupt?
        • What, you didn't like being wrenched out of the flow? <grin> fixed.
    • Armament
      • What are "PI Mounts", as mentioned in the first paragraph of the Armament Section on Furious?
        • Pivot Mark I*, but I'll just delete their type; it's simpler.
      • I'd suggest keeping number/letter measurements consistent. You put on as "5.5-inch guns" and the other as "four-inch guns". While either one's ok, it's good to be consistent with them.
        • Indeed.
      • In the sentence They fired a 4-inch (100 mm) 31-pound (14 kg) high explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,387 ft/s (728 m/s) at a rate of ten to fifteen rounds per minute., saying "they fired a 4-inch" is redundant. It's the 4-inch guns we're talking about; if they were firing something other than 4-inch projectiles I'd be worried.
      • Same thing with The Mark VIII gun fired a 4.7-inch (119 mm) 50-pound (23 kg) high explosive (HE) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,457 ft/s (749 m/s) at a rate of eight to twelve rounds per minute., we know the diameter of the shells they're firing; it's implied by the gun diameter.
        • I was trying to work in a conversion somewhere in the text.
    • Fire control
      • No issues here.
    • Protection
      • Again, no issues.
    • Air Groups
      • You keep talking about "two groups of fighters, etc", without mentioning how large a group actually was in terms of the actual number of planes.
        • Groups, no. Flights and Squadrons, yes. The sizes of these units varied tremendously so I didn't want to try for any sort of precision. Best I can suggest is to divide the capacity by the number of units, which will get you an average size.
          • Fair enough. The American and Japanese carriers have the same problem.
    • Pre-war Service
      • Do we have a slightly more specific date on when transverse arresting gear was fitted on Furious than "the mid-1930's"
    • World War II Service
      • No issues. This section is very comprehensive and superbly well-written. Well done!
  • Fix these issues and I'll be happy to support. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all my issues above have been addressed. A thoroughly-comprehensive article; sets the standard for carrier articles. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: just be careful of mixing US and British English variations. I found a couple during a quick read. For example, US spelling "self-defense" in the Description section; "organized" in the Second World War section. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed those; please point out any others. My eyes tend to gloss right over them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • Lead, "She was given...no superstructure (also known as an "island") to create air turbulence". This could be read as she was given no superstructure in order to create air turbulence, although I'm fairly sure you mean the exact opposite. Reword?
    • Done.
  • Air groups, "and had more room to mix things up.". Colloquial/unencyclopedic language.
    • Fixed.
  • Pre-war service, "in September 1938 she embarked 801, 821 and 822 Squadrons". This just doesn't sound grammatical - is it ship jargon?
    • Not jargon per se, but how British aircraft squadrons are typically named. No ordinal or article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second World War: Furious - "departed on 15 April, flying reconnaissance missions". She didn't fly reconnaissance missions, the planes aboard her did.
    • This is one of those anthropomorphic issue regarding ships that I seem to be more comfortable with than most people. Fixed.
  • Same section, "Following her last ferry mission she was sent to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to refit." Why was a British ship sent to the US for a refit?
    • Unknown, but likely because the repair yards in the UK were full.
  • Same section, "spent the next three months working up." Doing what?
    • Umm, training? Unspecified in my sources.
      • Sorry, I should have been more specific. What does "working up" mean? It's not a term I have heard before.
        • Ah, I've linked it to a new definition in the glossary of nautical terms.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, "Tirpitz was hit 14 times so that she was under repair for". "So that she was"? Is there any way to reword that?
    • Done.
  • Same section, "although four aircraft were lost." Whose?
    • Fixed
      • This still doesn't say whose aircraft they were. The current sentence could be read either as "they were attacked and lost four aircraft" or "they attacked and lost four aircraft". See?
        • Offhand I'm not sure if the aircraft were lost to German fighters or flak. I'd figured that since the only aircraft mentioned earlier in the para were British that it was implicit that the aircraft lost were also British.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, "Three operations...had to be abandoned or diverted to other targets in May,". Why?
      • Combination of weather and alerted German defences.
  • As far as I can tell, the Chesneau ref is not used in the notes, but is listed in the references.

Overall, it looks good, but needs a few tweaks before I can support. Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a couple of things I would like to see tweaked, but they are minor, so changing to support. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.
Consensus to promote Woody (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese battleship Kirishima[edit]

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)(Prof)


The third of the Kongo class battlecruisers, sunk at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in one of the two battleship duals of the pacific war. This article has undergone a gradual rewrite; recently passed a thorough GA. As such I am nominating for A-Class. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Sandy's post at WT:SHIPS suggests to me that to keep doing well at FAC, we're going to need more copyeditors who are in some sense independent of SHIPS. Not sure how we'll accomplish that, but one thing I can do is to do more with edit summaries and notes here at ACR, to give copyeditors the information they need. Up til now, most of my edit summaries have been "ce", because otherwise, I was afraid it would come across too much like your mother saying, "Sit up straight, eat your vegetables, comb your hair ...". If it gets annoying, don't look :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Edit summary away. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was the third ship of her class, and was designed by British naval engineer George Thurston." Some problems here. "her class" is an EGG problem (named after Easter egg (media)), unless we're saying "lead ship of her class". We were also criticized recently at FAC for linking things twice (not sure how far that extends ... some of you may want to just avoid linking things twice within a section or two, but I aim not to link anything twice in the same article, it's safer at FAC.) If you write "her class", then sooner or later you're going to have to link Kongo class battlecruiser, and the two links to the same article may (or may not) draw attention at FAC. Next problem: there's going to be disagreement on whether "and was" should be removed on grounds of tightness. I went with: "Designed by British naval engineer George Thurston, she was the third launched of the four Kongō-class battlecruisers." - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, my approach has been to link things in the lead, then once again in the article, and that's it. I viewed the lead and the body as being distinct from one another, and I know that MoS with regards to linking used to work that way as well. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a selfish point of view, I prefer the one-link-per-article approach: when I'm reading through an article quickly checking the links, I can manage to remember if a link has appeared before; I can't remember if it's appeared once, twice or more. Recently at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SMS_König/archive1, we were criticized for linking "High Seas Fleet" in the first section after linking it in the lead section. OTOH, this isn't consistently policed at FAC, and many FAs have double links. With annoying little details like this, I try to keep it real: some editors are very interested in FAC even with all the little annoying rules, and many of our best copyeditors are trying to learn and follow FAC, so unless it's important to me (and this isn't), I try to avoid doing things that are going to draw a comment at FAC, from anyone, just to keep everyone happy. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're very inconsistent on Armament and Armor sections, which is fine with me, but I'm wondering if we couldn't be a little more outsider-friendly. Ed leaves those sections out of Rivadavia and Moreno, leaving those details to the class article. This article has one short Armament section. Sturmvogel tends to go into some detail. I'm concerned that when we're recruiting copyeditors, they'll stop on the first section and think, "I don't know anything about this, and I don't want to know anything about this". Would it be possible to make Armament a separate section and put it at the very end of the article? Even though that's not chronological, I think for most readers it would help rather than hurt the flow. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I started writing battleship articles, I based my layout for the article on what Tom had done with the Iowa class articles, which had a small "armament" section that just gave a brief overview of the weapons without going into as much detail as the class article itself. That said, I can easily shift the location of that section within the article to the end if need be. I can appreciate that a copyeditor who feels they know little about the subject just gives up (it's why I don't tend to copyedit articles to do with astrophysics!). Feel free to move. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like to recapitulate most of the infobox in a design and description section, although I sometimes leave out any description of the armor. If you do that then the armament section doesn't look lonely and out of place. To my mind the class article gets the detailed info on the evolution of the design and the description of the ship with a brief summary of the history of all the ships. The individual ship article is the mirror image with the focus on the history of the ship, although I obviously disagree with several people as to the appropriate amount of information suitable for a ship article. To my mind, for this class of ships, it's harder to get a feel for just how massively they were reconstructed unless you have a decent description of them as originally completed. In this case you could do this in the main body, or, perhaps, by adding another infobox; one showing as built and the other as of the last reconstruction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought of two infoboxes before. That might be a great way to make sure the information is present (and sourced as needed) without putting off readers and copyeditors (and possibly FAC reviewers) with the technical detail. If it's in an infobox, people will ignore it if they want to. Yes, I think I like this suggestion better than my suggestion, although I'm not sure if anyone's going to agree with me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A copyeditor might notice that the majority of modern sources refer to ships as "it", and AP Stylebook recommends "it" (at "boats"). But most of our ship writers prefer "she", and I think there's some wiki-logic to that. What Wikipedia has that other references don't is a sense that the text is by, for and about people who are close to the material. Sailors who had to trust their lives to their ships always anthropomorphized their ships, and sources that rely on first-person accounts also tend to say "she". I draw the line when we start ascribing intentions to ship, but "she" seems relatively harmless and "authentic" to me. WP:MOSSHIP allows consistent use of "she" or "it". - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I based this somewhat off the precedent set by Tom when he wrote the Iowa . MOS allows either one so long as it's consistent, so I tend to anthropomorphize my warships. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't decide; does it make more sense to say that she was equipped with floatplanes, or equipped with flying-off platforms for floatplanes? - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends which modernization you're talking about. With the first one, she was basically given a crane and floatplanes, so they were lowered into the water and then took off themselves. With the second, she was fitted with launch catapults and a crane. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I goofed here. I was just saying that it didn't sound right to me to say that a ship was equipped with a plane, since a plane isn't "gear"; I could be wrong. My dictionaries are no help, except that Webster's NWD gives "outfitted" in the definition. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we had a source in Japanese battleship Haruna that said that these were the most heavily armed ships in any navy at the time; is that right? Do we have that ref here somewhere? - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Jackson, The World's Great Battleships (2000). P. 48. "The Kongo class, displacing 27,940 tonnes...mounted eight 355mm and 16 152mm guns and could make 30 knots. They carried a complement of 1437 and outclassed all other contemporary ships". That's the one I used for that particular cite in Haruna. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Okay it's your call; whatever you think is most supported in the text is what should go in the lead; that might be "outclassed" or "most heavily armed" or something else. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, per ref #7, that same page supports the "most heavily armed" bit. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed "fast" from "fast carrier" in the lead because I thought it might confuse readers without a link, and I couldn't find a link. If you can define or link it, great, otherwise I'd recommend removing the "fast" in the rest of the article. We do link "fast battleship" so that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. By the time WWII floats into the periscope, I've never heard of non-fast fleet carriers. The distinction was mostly used when the British and French had old carriers that were converted from battleships that were far slower than those converted from faster battlecruisers and newer carriers (The French Bearn comes to mind. She could only make 21.5 knots; barely capable of launching and landing aircraft). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This does come into play somewhat with the U.S., although the distinction there was between the Essex-class fast carriers and the smaller CVLs (so-called "Jeep" carriers based on the Liberty ship hulls). I don't know how common the term is within nautical-focused histories, but I have seen them called "fast carriers" in works about Leyte Gulf. I've also seen TF 38/58 called the "Fast Carrier Task Force" in Wiki entries, so I would assume that using "fast carrier" here is acceptable.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like "Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia)" but I got reverted to "Dutch East Indies"; it's your call. It's standard in American newspapers to provide geographical references that people are likely to know if you're talking about an older name for a country or a small location the readers may not have heard of. Our naming convention is at WP:NCGN#Alternate names, and although that's specifically referring to page titles, by convention it's relevant whenever you're talking about something that is or could be a page title. The issue is that most readers don't click on links most of the time, even when they don't know what something means without the link, and most readers don't know 60-year-old names for countries, so in most cases, not giving the modern name leaves readers without a clue. I don't have a problem leaving out a modern name when inserting it triggers POV edits, but that's not true here. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with people using {{ship}}, {{sclass}}, {{USS}}, etc., but in my experience, editors are not memorizing the 30+ number parameters, so they make every possible mistake with these templates, including linking a ship it when it's already been linked. If we can attract more copyeditors, they'll catch this stuff, but new copyeditors are not going to memorize the templates, they're going to leave it for you guys to fix. Just sayin'. If you could reduce the number of parameters and only use the templates when you feel it's necessary, that might help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't tend to use the templates for that exact reason. Their markup syntax just gets too complex for me to comprehend after a while. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, we should use the most specific link available. Mitsubishi was just added one place and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries another; probably, both should be Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, without linking the second. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links are appearing and disappearing so I won't tackle it now, but sometime before FAC, my advice is to link anything that a reader unfamiliar with ships isn't likely to know, and only link things once. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. Will do before FAC. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You start off hyphenating "Kongō-class battlecruisers", and then the hyphen comes and goes after that. Most SHIPS people hyphenate it. If you hyphenate, it's "Yamashiro- and Ise-class battleships" or ""Yamashiro-class and Ise-class battleships" or "battleships in the Yamashiro and Ise classes". - Dank (push to talk) 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd prefer to go with the first option. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "front faces of her turrets" be "forward faces"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per usual disclaimer, although it won't pass FAC without attention to some of the problems I mentioned. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
    • images do not have alt text, and although it is not a requirement, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);
    • I think that the images I licenced correctly, but it might pay to have someone with a bit more knowledge in this area take a look;
    • there is a mixture of date formats used in the article, for instance in the lead "7 December 1941", but in the infobox "March 17, 1912". All the dates should be consistent format, although it doesn't matter which format you use;
    • in the References section, some of the ISBNs have hyphens while others don't. I think these should all have a consistent style;
      • Style has been made consistent. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Advisor script reports that the ISBNs for the Schom work and the book by Wilmott & Keegan might not be correct, can you please investigate and rectify if necessary?
    • in the Citations section you have a "Jackson 2007" source, but it doesn't seem to appear in the References section;
      • Should be "Jackson 2008", my mistake. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you please take a look at this again? I don't think this has been fixed. The issue is that you have citations that say Jackson (2000) [Citation #7 for example]; Jackson (2007) [Citation #4] and Jackson (2008) [Citation # 17], but in the Reference list you only have the full bibliographic details for Jackson (2000). This indicates that multiple works by Jackson have been cited, but there are currently only full bibliographic details for one of these. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoopsies. I've added the other book. My bad. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Citations section, Citation # 2 uses italics for "Parshall, Jon; Bob Hacket, Sander...etc", but Citation # 3 & 6 do not. If these are authors, and not the publishers then they shouldn't be in italics, but if they are the publishers then they should be (I think, either way it should be consistent). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are the authors and the publishers. For consistency, I've de-italicized them. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll get to these as quickly as I can, though that probably won't be until the weekend. I'm moving across the country for school tomorrow, so I'll be unavailable for a few days. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 20:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • What happened to the ship after it sank? was it raised and scrapped or is it still there? is it used as a dive site, ect.
    • Who rescused the surviving crew? Were they captured or saved by Japanese vessels?
    • Nobutake Kondō, the commander of this vessel, survived the battle it might be useful to mention that he was not among the dead.XavierGreen (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is a very strong article, but I think that some of its wording needs to be improved for the article to reach A class:
    • "a line of capital ships" - the term 'line' seems a bit odd here. 'Type' perhaps?
Changed to "a group of capital ships", though I suppose "type" would work just as well. I always viewed type as being indicative of the distinction between battleship/battlecruiser, whereas different lines of ships were different classes; i'm just trying to avoid using "class" four-hundred times. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's 'flash-tightness'?
In my reading of the term both here and elsewhere, it has to do with the ability to seal the various components of the turret and magazine off from one another. For example, the Royal Navy concluded that poor flash-tightness was one of the big problems with their battlecruisers at Jutland. That said, I haven't been able to find a hard-and-fast definition of the term so far. I'll keep looking. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The main guns carried ammunition for ninety shots" - surely this ammunition wasn't stored in the guns. I'd suggest something like 'The ship's magazines could accodate ninety rounds of ammunition for each of the main guns".
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "During her reconstruction, the 3" guns were removed and replaced..." - which of the two reconstructions was this? (the first, I assume)
The second reconstruction actually. The first was primarily an armour/propulsion upgrade. Most of the serious armament reworking happened in the 1930's. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's 'Third Reserve'?
My guess is a designation of "First Reserve Fleet", "Second Reserve Fleet", and "Third Reserve Fleet"; basically what order you call ships up from reserve in. I could be wrong though. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence in the para which begins with "Six days after Kirishima's reconstruction" needs a citation
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The para which begins 'On 11 November 1941' is unreferenced Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partially because I don't want to over-rely on combinedfleet, this one may take a wee bit of time. I'm away from my bookshelves for the next month, and I only brought about 20 books with me to uni. I'll take a look around Carleton Library later today and see what I find. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • The collision with Fuji during fleet maneuvers, do we know who was responsible for that and if anyone aboard Kirishima wound up sacked as a result?
    • If you can find a way to sneak it into the last paragraph on the death of Kirishima, I would suggest noting that Washington was commanded by Willis Augustus Lee. Lee's intimate understanding of radar help him maneuver Washington into a position to wail on Kirishima, and this was of curse a factor in the death Kirishima. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—A1 citation quality:
    Bibliography: Hammel, Eric (1988). spell out location to meet style you're using. Jackson, Robert (2000). missing location. Willmott, H.P. & Keegan, John [1999] (2002). Smithsonian Books isn't as well known as UPs, may require location information (nice use of original year!).
I'll get to work finding the locations. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References made without citation or bibliography, consider based on nature of the reference works (I for one haven't heard of Kirishima's Combined Fleet before today), Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships; Kirishima's Combined Fleet. Gets worse, you footnote references to these, the footnotes should indicate "as cited in..." and "as cited in..." respectively unless you sighted the original work yourself (or another wikipedia editor did so), in which case the originals should also be cited in those footnotes.
I'm following Wikipedia MoS with regards to how I've formatted the citations for combinedfleet and Conway's. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short citations: Willmott (2002), p. 35. Remove year to meet your style (year only when multiple works by same author), or add year to all short cites. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice presentation of a work in series: Morison, Samuel Eliot (1958).
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

Passed --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Kaiser (1911)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Yet another of my German dreadnoughts, Kaiser was the lead ship of the third class built by the Imperial Navy. The ship conducted a long-distance cruise to South America shortly before the outbreak of World War I, and participated in most of the fleet actions of the conflict. I look forward to working with reviewers with the goal of eventually taking this article to FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: A few comments to get the review started. I haven't read through the whole article as yet, though.
    • no dab links, no external links broken (no action required);
    • some images have alt text, but others don't. You might consider adding it in (only a suggestion, not a requirement);
    • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • in the infobox, in the Crew field you have "1043 enlisted", but I think that for consistency of style you should use "1,043 enlisted" as you have used the comma elsewhere for values over a thousand;
    • in the Notes section you have a work by Campbell, but this doesn't appear in the References list;
    • in the Notes section you have a work by Gardiner & Grey, but this doesn't appear in the References list;
    • Citations # 5 and 6 appear to be the same (Staff Vol 1 p. 11) and should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS;
    • Citations # 57 and 58 (Tarrant, p. 282) appear to be the same and should be consolidated as per above;
    • Citations # 13 and 15 (Tarrant, p. 58) appear to be the same and should be consolidated as per above. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I think I've fixed everything you pointed out here. Let me know if there's anything else that needs fixing. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. I've done Operation Albion and Battle of Jutland in many other articles, so I didn't look this time; I assume those subsections are fine. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - another excellent article IMO. I made a couple of minor edits but overall it looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TomStar81 (Talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

Promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Courageous (50)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's ready. One of the only two ships in history to have served as a battleship or battlecruiser in combat and then to be fully converted into an aircraft carrier. Have no fear, you'll have the opportunity to read about the other in a month or so. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No dablinks, no broken external links. No alt text, but I don't know what The Official Stance at A-class is. I'll reserve judgement until I've had a more detailed look in a few days, but to start with, can you source andor elaborate on the "Outrageous" nickname? -- saberwyn 21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'll take this article next unless you want me to swing by Hood, SV. You want me to give reasons for stuff or just launch a frontal assault? I'd prefer cruisers (no quotes) to "large light cruisers" (with quotes); putting quotes in the first sentence is just a little confusing because they could mean several different things. That's a great phrase, but we can take time to explain what it means in the first section. - Dank (push to talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either one is fine by me; I'm not going to submit either for promotion until the end of the month at the earliest. Damn the torpedoes, full speed! I'll just abuse my newly acquired abilities if I don't like your changes. (sounds of mad cackling receding into the distance)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh. I told him that was a bad idea. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The details on the structural damage (see HMS Courageous (50)#First World War) may or may not be more than most of you guys want to know. In general, the issue of what makes an interesting ship article, what you guys want to see more or less of, is a call that shouldn't be made by a copyeditor, so comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the damage details because semi-knowledgeable people might be asking "just how was the ship damaged?", but then, I tend to like a copious amount of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, would someone be willing to run through this article and future articles at A-class (I think we've covered the ones up to now) and link the terms that most readers aren't likely to know? If you spot a term but don't know a good link, either let us know or red-link it. I've already run through this article deleting second links to the same article ... if the article might get to FAC some day, please don't add links that we already have anywhere in the text (but once in the infoboxes and once in the text is fine). - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually ... what we really need, and I'll do it later if no one else gets to it, is run through the 30 FAs and A-class articles before this one and see what we linked to (we've been pretty careful) and make a list so that people will know what to link and where to link to. I don't see any reason this couldn't be automated into a tab that links every term in an article that appears in that list, and also checks to make sure we don't link twice. We don't need this for A-class, but most of these articles can and do go on to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the time of day is mentioned in one of these articles, we usually provide, and I recommend, a note telling us whether it's Greenwich time or CET, since British sources will generally give give one and German sources will give the other. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Google searches are kind of an amateurish way to gauge English usage, my Google search is showing Captain Lieutenant (sometimes hyphenated) as much more common than Kapitänleutnant in English sources, so I went with the section link Captain Lieutenant. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Rear Admiral" hyphenated in British English? - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph under Conversion gave the recommissioning date as May 1928 per Burt. I removed this since the date was given as February a few paragraphs later, but feel free to re-insert, explain or swap it for the other date. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rewritten the sentence to clarify that the ship was finished in February, but spent the intervening time on trials and training before she joined the Med Fleet; see how it reads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the changes look fine now. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to put a "the" in front of 800 Squadron; is that doable? "She carried 800 Squadron" is going to be misread by some. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Up to you, I guess. To my military-trained ear it's not how the unit would be referred to. It's kinda like ships where you don't normally use articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any chance of saying "800th Squadron"? - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why don't we leave it as is since I can point to just as many books that refer to FAA or RAF squadrons without an ordinal as with. If somebody objects I'll change it, but I'd prefer not to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for A-class, but with a few comments/questions for improvement:

  • Trials damage: exact cause is uncertain. probably needs a citation; I think its a contestible claim.
    • Done.
  • In mid-1917 Courageous received a dozen torpedo tubes in pairs:... might need a bit of rewording to clarify, something like received six paired torpedo tube sets:...?
    • Reworded, but I'm not sure that's it's much of an improvement. See what you think.
  • The 1st Cruiser Squadron was ordered to attempt to intercept the German ships, but they proved to be faster than hoped and the British ships were unsuccessful. This comes across as a bit wordy...maybe The 1st Cruiser Squadron were ordered to intercept, but were unsuccessful as the German cruisers were faster than expected.?
    • Done.
  • Is there any recorded use of the Struter and Camel embarked at the start of 1918?
    • No, probably because there weren't any significant actions during the year.
  • "Conversion": For context, can you specify when Furious was converted, and how Courageous' design was improved?
    • Is it now clearer?
  • For what purpose did the ship carry 34,500 gallons of petrol?
    • Added
  • "Air Group": Do you know which squadrons were embarked during between 1928 and 1933? During what time period were 810, 820, and 821 Squadrons embarked? I assume that 811 Squadron was aboard for the duration after embarking in early 1939, but when was 801 Squadron replaced by 822 Squadron?
    • The air units were flights before '33. I can dig up which ones were assigned to the ship, but I'm fairly certain that they were swapped back and forth quite a bit.
  • "Sinking" I don't think the linked article is the best way to describe the WWII RN hunter-killer groups. Instead, you could probably adapt some of the content (particulary the second-half of the first paragraph) from HMS Ark Royal (91)#With the hunter-killer groups.
    • Found a better link.
  • Can you specify the number of survivors?
    • Nothing I have lists their numbers.
  • Are their any memorials regarding the loss of the carrier?
    • Beats me, I haven't heard of any.

There may be more to come. Hope this all helps. -- saberwyn 21:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2:

  • Was the ship originally a battlecruiser (class article), a light battlecruiser (infobox), a cruiser (lead), or a large light cruiser (previous lead)? Would it be worth footnoting the first occurence in the lead, with what various sources describe her as?
    • I'm not exactly sure how the RN handled this sort of stuff, but I'm fairly certain that she was initially designated as a large light cruiser because of the limitation on the size of new construction laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1915. Afterwards, I have no idea. Fisher did refer to her as a light battlecruiser on occasion, but he tended to be a bit loose in his language.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "30% larger airgroup" claim should be copied into the body and cited.
    • I've rephrased it with the actual numbers and don't really think that it needs citing, considering that the ship's air group size is later cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide a conversion for the 1916 construction cost? -- saberwyn 21:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably, but I don't exactly know how. At any rate, I've discovered that I can't source the conversion cost (it was a legacy from an earlier incarnation), and have deleted it. I have a figure for Glorious's conversion, but not for Courageous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the future, you can use {{Inflation}} for British currency back to the 1200s (and American to 1800 and German to 1882). Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - just a few nitpicks:
    • What's a Mark I* gun turret? Is that the formal designation? The asterisk made me think something was going to be explained.
      • That's the formal designation. Stars, or asterisks were used to denote minor changes. They were cumulative so you could have Mark III****--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should use the inflation template for the construction cost.
      • I didn't know that there was one, thanks.
        • I went ahead and added them for the construction and conversion costs. Feel free to change them as you see fit. Parsecboy (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say that after commissioning she was assigned to 3rd LCS, but due to the mauling of 1st CS at Jutland, Courageous was reassigned. The way it's worded makes it sound as though Courageous was in service at the time of Jutland.
    • "managed to slip through the gaps in the British patrols and destroyed a convoy" doesn't sound right to me. For parallel structure it should be "managed to slip through...and destroy a convoy..."
      • Yes.
    • I'm not particularly familiar with 2nd Helgoland, but I know SMS Kaiser and SMS Kaiserin were present and briefly engaged HMS Renown. Did Courageous come into contact with them at all?
      • No, Renown was detached from the 1st BCS and fought independently of the 1st CS.
    • Maybe just link "hydraulic accelerators" to aircraft catapult?
  • Excellent work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

USS Massachusetts (BB-2)[edit]

Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review as I am attempting to make it a Featured article and a thorough A-class review is an important part of the process. Massachusetts wass the US second real battleship and received neither the attention of USS Indiana (BB-1), nor the glory of USS Oregon (BB-3), making her probably most notable for her bad luck. Many thanks to everybody who reviews (or otherwise improves) the article. (Note: Article is still at GAN, but only issue remaining is a copyright tag on an image, which will be resolved soon or the picture replaced)Yoenit (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It's true that Friedman (pp. 24-25) specifically mentions approval by the House of Representatives in April 1890, but "then" (presumably also in 1890) the Senate also signed off on the 3 battleships (and 2 smaller ships, btw). Normally when you see "the House approved X in year Y" in a U.S. newspaper, it means that the Senate did not approve it, which was not the case here, so I reworded. - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Design and construction section, I get that you want the focus to be on just this ship, but in the first paragraph, first you're talking about the design of all 3 ships, then about the design of just this ship for 2 sentences, then all 3 again in the first sentence of the next paragraph. My recollection from the previous article (I don't have the pre-1905 Conway) is that those two sentences equally apply to all 3 ships, so I changed "she" to "they", etc. But if that's not what the sources say, please correct me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, changed it around for Indiana after I got comments about it being to much about the ship class, looks better so anyway. Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can use http://www.measuringworth.com to convert the $6M figure to today's dollars; I think it would help at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the link. I don't like inflation conversions myself, but I will keep it in mind if somebody asks for them. (or did you just do that?) Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The possessive of "Massachusetts" is just too awkward, with all those sibilant sounds; the apostrophe is more common than 's, but even more common is to reword, which I did. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you happen to have a link for the 3-inch/50 caliber gun? - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there is an article called 3"/50 caliber gun, but it is about the post-WW1 guns [4], while these were the early guns [5]. Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • For readers who don't already know the jargon, "3-inch (80 mm)/50 caliber" looks weird, as if it's 80 mm divided by 50; and it also looks wrong to readers who do know the jargon, since they're not going to read "3-inch (80 mm)/50 caliber" anywhere but Wikipedia. We got a change to WP:MOSNUM this summer so that now we omit the unit conversions inside a link, and I prefer the way that looks, so I'm going to red-link it; hopefully someone will create a stub, including the conversion to 80 mm. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She saw little action other than summer cruises" ... depends what we mean by "action"; I usually think something more is going on during "action" than a summer cruise, but maybe this is okay. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think, per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, thanks for your relentless copyediting Dank. Don't think I could ever get something to pass A-class without your help. Yoenit (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. There are lots of people here who help, I just get up earlier than they do :) And this is how writing works in the real world (that place where you get paid!) ... very few writers do it all themselves. You're a good researcher and you can say what you want to say, that's really all you need to be successful. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • there are no dab links, external links all work (no action required);
    • images seem to be appropriately licenced to me (no action required);
    • Citation # 4 "Bryan (1901)": there appears to be a punctuation issue or a sentence that should be moved to the Footnotes section "Retrieved 14 April 2010. , rounded average calculated from the experimental data in this paper, with BB-1 and BB-2 lumped together";
    • Citation # 7 "Friedman, U.S. Battleships, p. 24–25": this should have "pp." rather than "p." because it has multiple page ranges;
    • Citation # 17 "Graham & Schley, Schley and Santiago, pp. 93-94" should have an endash for the page ranges per WP:DASH;
    • in the Bibliography, the year ranges in the titles should have endashes;
    • in the Bibliography, could an OCLC number be added to the Graham and Winfield work? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done All issues adressed Yoenit (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my comments have been addressed. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A couple of awkward tags that I added to the lede that need to be cleaned up.
Is the first one better now? I don't know what's wrong with the second one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is fixed, but the second one refers to the order of the clauses as noted in the comment itself. Surely the ship was used as a target before it was scuttled?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, she was scuttled in shallow water before being shot at. I am pretty sure her superstructure remained above water and they aimed at that, but it would OR to say so in the article. I included the part about shallow water in the sentence, hope it is clear now. Yoenit (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - IMO the article meets all of the criteria. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

SMS Rheinland[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


The last of the four Nassau-class battleships to grace the hallowed Milhist ACR page, Rheinland was the first vessel to be laid down but the third completed. I wrote this article primarily in May, and it has since passed a Good Article review and been copy-edited by Dank. I feel the article is at or close to A-class quality, and I look forward to working with the reviewers toward improving this article for an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to examine the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • no dab links, no ext links (so none can be broken) (no action required);
    • some images have alt text, but the HMS Black Prince picture does not. I suggest it be added for consistency, but it is only a suggestion;
    • in the lead, this might need to be reworded slightly: "...sold the ship to ship-breakers in the Netherlands. The ship was eventually..." (ship is mentioned a few times);
    • in the Battle of tghe Gulf of Riga section, sometimes you have "the Gulf" and then at other times "the gulf" (the capitalisation is the issue here, I think it is a proper noun so it should be "the Gulf");
    • in the World War I section you have "of some 12 dreadnoughts", but then later in the Battle of Jutland section have this: "eleven German dreadnoughts". I think the eleven should be changed to 11 to satisfy the MOS;
    • In the Battle of Jutland section, this sounds a little awkward: "Although the bulkhead was bulged in from..." (bulged in doesn't quite sound right to my ear, but I'm not sure what to suggest, sorry);
    • in the Expedition to Finland section, I think this may have been brought up before - the Helsingfors/Helsinki issue. Not sure what was said last time, but I think there was a suggestion to include a bracketed comment beside Helsingfors that it is also known as Helsinki in Engish, e.g. "Helsingfors (Helsinki)...";
    • in the Fate section, I think a short explaination might be required for why the High Seas Fleet was interned in Scapa Flow, e.g under the provisions of the armistice. This could be done by just adding a short clause to the end of the first sentence of the section;
    • in the References section, the year ranges should have endashes per WP:DASH;
    • in the References section some of the ISBNs have hyphens and some do not. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I don't see any edits of mine ... sorry if I forgot this one, I'll do it now. - Dank (push to talk)
  • When I did an English-language Google search, I got many more hits for "German Imperial Navy" than for "Kaiserliche Marine", so I'm assuming the English term goes first with the German in parentheses ... does anyone know different? - Dank (push to talk)
  • I don't know if you care about consistency with hyphens before "class", Nate ... if so, search for "Sachsen class armored frigate". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Although "manned" is acceptable to some, and there's an argument that it fits with the wiki-philosophy that we're not trying to be in any sense "better" or "more sensitive" than our sources, I still think that we need to be aware that most writers, academics and professionals have felt that words like "manned" have been outdated since before 1980, and some feel they reflect negatively on the writer (and copyeditor!) ... even though the crew was (probably) all male. The thinking has been that the automatic and unconscious use of such words reinforces the bias that things will go horribly wrong if you put women on a ship. But I think the main argument isn't about "sensitivity", it's that I haven't seen the word for over 30 years in writing of the kind we're trying to emulate. - Dank (push to talk)
  • I believe I've copyedited the Battle of the Gulf of Riga section before. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Same with Battle of Jutland and the first paragraph in the next section. If someone could look through to make sure that the stuff that was copyedited before still looks good, I'd appreciate it. It's a fine article but I'll hold off on my support for now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I finished up the copyediting I was asking for help with. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- prose, sourcing, and supporting materials all look good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Oil or coal-fired?
  • Conversion needed for ihp
  • What time is used in the Jutland section?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

Borodino class battlecruiser[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think that it's ready. Be advised that most every image of these ships in Commons is unsourced and unusable at this level. Also, please be specific in your comments on prose issues. Generic comments are not very helpful and do not allow me to identify the problem(s) so I can fix them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • the prose seems fine to me, although I made a couple of tweaks. Please check that you agree with the changes I made;
    • no dab links (no action required);
    • I didn't find any glaring MOS issues;
    • one external link shows as dead using the Featured article tools, can you please investigate? [6];
    • alt text could be added to the image, but this is just a suggestion;
    • Note # 2 might need a citation;
    • the navigation template at the bottom of the article might look better if it were collapsed (given that it is reasonably big). AustralianRupert (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all my comments have been addressed and the article has been thoroughly copyedited. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead section will need 2 paragraphs for FAC; I'd prefer to see two for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not exactly sure where to break it in two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, and I added a bit to the second paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who gave approval on 5 May 1911? - Dank (push to talk)
  • "armament was to be nine 14-inch (356 mm) guns" will be a little smoother if the armament was increased relative to the previous design; was it? - Dank (push to talk)
    • 12 inches was the largest caliber yet used by the Russians.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "standard load" make sense pre-WNC? - Dank (push to talk)
  • When it's clear a ship was only designed and never built, it seems fine to me to say that the ship "had" this and that; it's obvious the design is meant. But for these, "a number of components had been ordered from foreign manufacturers", so they were in the process of putting stuff together. So in some of the sections, it's not clear to me whether you're describing the design or something that was actually built. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a problem because the ships were actually constructed; they were just never finished.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, when you say "They could be loaded at any angle between −5° and +15°; their rate of fire was supposed to [be] three rounds per minute ...", the lack of a "supposed to" in the first clause suggests that the guns were really in place and could be loaded ... was that the case? - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kind of. The guns could only be loaded at those angles, but the reloading time was speculative because no turret was ever finished.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not important to me, but sometimes you write "degrees" and sometimes you use the symbol, you might want to do a quick search for "degrees". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Per WP:ORDINAL (and also per AP, more or less), "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format ...". I've fixed it. - Dank (push to talk)
  • There's nothing on Wikipedia (3 hits, none helpful), and not a lot of ghits, that help me with "subcaliber training". I found this on a forum: "Subcaliber firing was used by the U.S. Army to develop a tank gunner's accuracy, speed, and confidence without the costs and disturbance of firing the main armament. In general, the coaxial machine gun was used for the subcaliber training. However for fire adjustment training, a standard submachine gun was mounted outside the tank. Until a standard mount could be developed, the Tank Gunnery manual recommended the following mount for the 75-mm gun on the M4. For firing, the submachine gun was connected to the firing solenoid from the coaxial machine gun. Source: Tank Gunnery, War Department Field Manual FM 17-12, July 10, 1944". Thoughts? Do we want to add this term to the glossary? - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tapering" and "decreasing" are better than "reducing" (used intransitively), although "reducing" isn't wrong. Use it sparingly. - Dank (push to talk)
  • This is the second article I've seen that needed either a glossary entry or a redlink for armored citadel. (Sovetsky_Soyuz_class_battleship was the first). Anyone want to take a stab at it? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Anyone know if Template:lang-ru is meant to be followed only by Cyrillic? (See the Notes section.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll speed it up, I want to finish this before lunch. Sentences that need ... something:
    "Delays affected construction of the ships enough that, when reviewed on 4 June 1914, launching of the first pair of ships was delayed until October 1914." needs something.
    "as shown below" ... opinions vary on this; some discussion can be found in WP:SELFREF and its talk page. Some people feel strongly that you never know where Wikipedia text will wind up and you shouldn't say something in the text that makes an assumption; sometimes the text will be "shown below", and sometimes it won't, for instance if someone is reading the article on a small screen and they're choosing not to see images and tables. I don't have a problem with it.
    I prefer for the first link to "scrap" or "scrapping" to go to ship breaking; then if there's a second link, scrap isn't bad. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment - Why are two of the book sources entirely in the footnotes? Shouldn't Breyer and Friedman be formatted the same as the rest? Parsecboy (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, once this issue is addressed I'll support the article for A-class. Also a bit of disclosure, whether it's relevant or not, I reviewed and passed this article for GA status. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - made a couple tweaks. The images look good, but I'd recommend fleshing out the "purpose of use" in both. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

HMS Speedy (1782)[edit]

Nominator(s): Benea (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed GA review, and I believe it meets the necessary requirements. Benea (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Support
  • No disamb links and no problems with external links but the images need alt text added
  • Added text
  • At her completion she had cost £4,200.7s.3d to build. Sadly I am old enough to be able to convert this but for younger readers it might be beneficial to convert into present money or round it off (its £4,200.36p).
  • I don't see much point in this, if the historical amount were to be converted, it should be into its modern equivalent, rather than to apply a decimal system that did not exist to a historical figure. Our featured article on a contemporary ship (HMS Endeavour) does not convert the sum.
    • I've wikilinked the £, s and d for the benifit of those who are not familiar with the pre-1971 British currency system. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why she kept getting paid off in her early career ?
  • This was a common occurrence in peacetime for practically every type of warship, and usually happened with the change of commander. After fairly long or arduous commissions, the ship would be taken into the dockyard, the crew often dispersed among the other ships of the fleet, and usually a survey carried out. The ship was then laid up until such time that the Admiralty decided on a use for her, and any repairs or refits were carried out before the ship recommissioned under a new commander.
  • By this stage (the mid-1790s) the 64-gun ships were no longer considered ships of the line, as their armament was no longer sufficient to stand in the line of battle (at least that was the conventional wisdom). The 74 guns became the smallest rated ships that were considered suitable as 'ships of the line', and the 64s were gradually being phased out of the navy by this time.
  • I know what you mean by piece of plate but it does sound like broken crockery is there a link you could use ?

I added some links you might want to check to ensure your happy with them --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can to address these issues. Best, Benea (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've raised an issue with the infobox on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "winning fame for herself": I won't fiddle with this because I see it as a "neutral tone" issue more than a matter for a copyeditor. The term "fame" is certainly more acceptable in articles set in the 18th century than the 20th, but I still think some reviewers may prefer terms like "distinction" (which you use), "honor", "honors", "commendations", etc. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Are you suggesting it be changed? Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not experienced enough with articles on 18th century ships to know yet. OTOH, neither are some of the reviewers you'll encounter here and at FAC, and I don't know how they'll respond ... so for now, do nothing, but have a few examples ready if necessary at FAC of articles that use similar language in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, I don't claim any good feel for British English, please correct me if I get it wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoing what MJ said, you may have trouble with "£4,200.7s.3d" at FAC, despite the fact that similar notation made it through another FAC. I'm not sure, but my reading of WP:$ is that "£" is fine at first occurrence for UK-specific articles, but not everyone will be expected to know "s" and "d". Linking them in the text as well as MJ's helpful links in the infobox might make a difference, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk)
  • A conversion can be added, ie that the sum was 'roughly equivalent to £549,300 in present day terms.' For some reason the template does not allow the figure to be expressed naturally as '£403,000' though. Would this help? Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added this to the article, and have linked the £. s. d. in the article body. Feel free to remove it again if it looks problematic. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it would help, and I think that would probably be okay (assuming we're preparing for FAC, this is certainly FAC-worthy). I guess my strategy at FAC, whenever possible, is to edit in a way that minimizes the chance that anyone will quote WP:MOSNUM for any reason ... it's better if those conversations just don't even get started. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get a ghit on Gourjean road (i.e. roadstead) as a small French gulf, but it's not on Wikipedia yet; I've red-linked it. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "she mistook Captain Thomas Fremantle's Inconstant ...": Who mistook? Can I assume "her captain" would work? - Dank (push to talk)
  • I've changed it to this in the article. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British force boarded and carried both ships, and then brought off ...": sorry, I'm not following "carried" or "brought off". - Dank (push to talk)
  • I've reworded this to make it clearer. 'Carried' means to capture in this context, 'brought off' refers to the ships being re-floated and sailed away from the enemy. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Spanish ran in to a small sandy bay": if you meant "ran" as in, the wind was behind them, then I need to change it back and link it, but to avoid misunderstanding of "ran", I changed it to "sped". - Dank (push to talk)
  • No, the meaning here is not to do with one of speed, though the implication is that it happened quickly, but as you note, the question of wind direction. They ran in with the wind, rather than having to warp in, for example. I've changed it back, though I'm not sure what you would link it to though.Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience ... in retrospect, waking up to see someone made 52 edits to your excellent article might not have been the most clever way to begin a collaboration :) I should have taken the time to scan your other articles and get a sense that if you said "ran", you probably meant "ran". I look forward to learning a lot from you, as I have from Parsecboy, Sturmvogel_66 and others. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also ... I linked it, I use Sailing#Running but there may be other links that are better. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a good link to me! Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also changed "Speedy ran" to "Speedy raced"; same point. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Did you mean "cannonade" instead of "carronade"? - Dank (push to talk)
  • "increase the volatility of his new command": I don't follow. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Cochrane tried to give Speedy a more powerful armament, to make her more of a threat to enemy shipping, more likely to triumph in combat, etc, by fitting her with more and larger guns. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would "armament" be acceptable? - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "learned" sounds wrong to Brits and "learnt" sounds wrong to us (even uneducated and backwoodsy to some). I substituted "discovered"; hope that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's going to be a significant issue then no I don't have a problem with it. Benea (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely optional how much you want to buy in to what I'm doing here; I'm trying to make the article transparent to Brits, Americans, and others ... especially Brits and Americans who might review it at FAC :) OTOH, I definitely don't want to dumb it down, remove all the nautical terms, or change your style to my style. I routinely ask the American editors to make changes so that the articles will be more accessible in Commonwealth countries; read any of the recent A-class articles and see if you agree that they don't sound "disagreeably American" to your ear (and if they do, tell me!). But the bottom line is that this is not my article, and the guidelines are clear that it's okay if language doesn't sound right to everyone in every country, so feel free to revert anything I do or tell me off. (I mean that; productive relationships between professional writers and professional copyeditors always involve some degree of irritation. It comes with the territory, and I don't mind.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edits look fine and helpful so far! Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A suggestion (feel free to revert): since "broadside(s)" means four different things, I'd like to add a link. I think the most helpful description for this article is Broadside#As a measurement, but that doesn't fit the first occurrence, so I rewrote the first occurrence and linked the second. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Spanish faltered at [the sight of sailors in black-face]": understood that the victors write the histories, and there's not a lot we can do other than go with our sources, but I generally distrust the parts of the accounts that talk about how the enemy trembled in the face of the mighty/scary/disguised/whatever heroes. I suspect the Spanish didn't do significantly more or less trembling than anyone else being run at with pointy swords. I made the edit; YMMV. - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, though writers emphasise the importance of inflicting confusion and surprise on the enemy, when some of the crew hesitate, so the effect spreads. The black faced boarders were to imitate the pirates and moorish corsairs the Spanish had centuries of experience with, and to confuse and dismay them. He followed this up with the attack from the waist, leaving the Spanish surrounded. It's probably too much detail for here, and I'm happy with the reword. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I get it. I have no objection to adding that, especially if there are sources that echo the same thing from the point of view of the Spanish crew. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotta make a store run so I'll hurry this up. having "at the time the only person on Speedy" so close to "leaving only the ship's doctor aboard" may not be "tight" enough for FAC ... it might slide through but I like to edit defensively. However, I can't figure out what would be better. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but it seems to emphasise the important aspects of the action, firstly Cochrane's daring in taking practically his entire crew onto the enemy ship (where they were still outnumbered 6 to 1), and then his bravado at calling for 50 more men, when there was not a single man to spare. Both factors were crucial elements in the subsequent victory. If there are no suggestions, perhaps see if this becomes a problem later? Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone think we should link "struck his colours"? I can't decide. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually do to be honest, and have linked it here. Benea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I translated the bit in the last section but my French is pretty poor, someone check it please. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "burnt" is okay with me, "learnt" isn't ... inconsistent I know, but "learnt" ... ew. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. If forced to choose one ship article out of the last 20 to make into a movie, it would be this one, it's not even close. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support promotion too. I'm not an A-class reviewer but the article is looking in pretty good shape now. No doubt it will be pushed on to FA before too long. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Looks very good to me, I just have a couple of minor comments:
    • there is quite a bit of whitespace in the French Revolutionary Wars section when I view the article due to the placement of the Cunningham image (this might just be my screen, though);
    • some of the ISBNs are hyphenated, but others arent (these should be consistent);
    • the titles in the References should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;
    • could OCLC numbers be added to the works without ISBNs? The Ralfe work can be found here, I think: [7]
AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed these issues in the latest edit, though there is no whitespace that I can see. Benea (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 07:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rivadavia class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan)


The last article in a future FT. These ships saw five of the major world powers of the time—France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States—competing over the contracts to build them. Argentina used this hypercompetition to get what were probably the most advanced battleships in the world, but they were quickly eclipsed by more powerful and more numerous fleets of the major powers. Still, the intrigue during and even after their construction was surprisingly interesting to me; I hope it is to you as well. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportComments - Infobox needs conversions, currently its only in metric. More later... -MBK004 06:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, I haven't even touched the infobox yet. I'll fill it out and convert it tomorrow. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What else I would have brought up has already been, therefore I have switched to support. -MBK004 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • It would be good to link Bernardino Rivadavia and Francisco Moreno. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "revamped order" - the meaning of "order" is a bit unclear "order of battle" or "building program"? Same for "new order". Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded, I repeated essentially the same thing three times in that sentence... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her rivals" - may be too vague for the third sentence. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tendered bids" are commonly called "tenders" or "bids", the link is there for clarification. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bring the contracts back home". Check contract -> contracts in the sentence. "win the contract" may read more easily. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another great suggestion. It's "contracts" because Argentina was looking for two and possibly three ships. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hyper-competitive market" might be better as "hyper-competitive environment". Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest "During the course of the construction, the battleships were frequently the subject..." Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stricken on 1 February 1957" -> "Struck from navy lists on 1 February 1957" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check double linking of call for bids in "were solicited in 1908 by open tender" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I double link if it appeared in the lead—I'm not sure if this is unusual, but I skip lead paras most of the time when reading an article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "38 different shipyards" -> 38 shipyards. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plans were received from a total of 38 different shipyards, 15 of these from five nations—the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Italy—bid for the battleships." is difficult to read. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The president of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company believed that the United States would not receive contracts due to a large amount of European meddling in Argentina". Meddling reads as POV, despite it possibly being his interpretation. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check "diplomacy is are being made use of" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this quote desirable at all? Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure—it seemed relevant when I added it. ;) If you don't think it is, swoop in and remove it. It's not integral. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Italy last." Third? Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sixth. Livermore doesn't go into who / what contracts on on the list aside from what I included... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "required specifications" -> "specifications" Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead implies that there were three rounds of tendering, the design section mentions two. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. I'm not sure what to do here, because while Scheina and Livermore both explicitly say Argentina threw out the bids twoice (making three rounds—opening tenders, second round, third round), Livermore doesn't identify what round he talks about...he only discusses one, but later says that the Argentina naval commission had gotten a better battleship by forcing the companies to revise their submissions twice (emphasis mine). See also note 5. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under armor, nickel steel is maraging steel and medium steel is a grade of carbon steel. Doug (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links, external links all work (no action required);
    • images could have alt text added, but this is not a requirement (suggestion only);
    • I think File:Rivadavia class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg needs a different licence - it seems to be relying on the death of the author, but says that the author is not identified;
    • I made a couple of minor tweaks for italics and full stops in the citations (please check you agree with these), otherwise it looks quite good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to wait for everyone to decide whether alt text is necessary, and if it is, what form it should take, before doing it. :-)
      • Fixed Brassey's. Jappalang fixed a similar image's license in Minas Geraes' FAC, so I copied that over.
      • Your minor tweaks were spot on. Good catches. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my concern has been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments
    • You've got 14 inch (305mm) in the infobox; I know off the top of my head 305mm is 12 inches, so that needs to be fixed.
    • The cost figures are confusing; you have the British lowering their bids in US dollars, and the US bids figured in pounds. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Also, if possible, could you convert them so the reader isn't comparing apples to oranges?
      • Good point. How did I miss that before? Conway's gave it in pounds, Livermore gave it in dollars. I'll find a currency converter next time I'm online —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe specify that Bahia was a cruiser, as it appears now it looks like another battleship.
    • The service history section states that the ships were converted to oil-firing boilers, but later on it blames their inactivity during WWII partially on a lack of coal.
    • The photo of Rivadavia's main gun and armor - do we have any proof that it's part of the Bain collection? If not, it'll need to go. You could probably just contact the LoC and ask. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll send off an email tomorrow, I'm falling asleep here :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Email sent —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anything yet on the photo? Maybe you should remove it (hopefully only temporarily) until you get a response, so it doesn't hold up the ACR from passing. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • See below, I replied in the wrong spot. :p It's not part of their collections, so I'm getting rid of it now. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Group instead of series in the opening sentence?
  • The four-inch guns seems to have been mounted in casemates and in pivot mounts. Is this correct? And if so, did they have gun shields?
  • Translate the poundage of the deck armor into thickness. 40 lbs per inch of thickness is the ratio.
  • I consolidated a bunch of the conversions in the Propulsion section for you.
    • I also didn't remember that {convert} can do that. Boy, you're just an expert with that template, eh? :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise looks good, despite a lack of info on their service careers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of sounding like another editor, there isn't much on their careers. Early on, service was frequently interrupted by stints in reserve because of economic recessions. Later on (this is speculation, but probably accurate) they were used as status symbols while the more cost-efficient cruisers did the real work (and WWII patrolling). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Comment on a comment: best I can tell, "stricken from the register" and "struck from the register" are both fine. "naval vessel stricken register" (without quotes) gets about twice as many relevant ghits as ""naval vessel struck register". - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the "buisness" inside a quotation to [business]; the brackets should come off if it was just a typo. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How similar is the "Navy Board of Inspection" of that era to the current Board of Inspection and Survey? If it's much the same thing, then I suggest a wikilink. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remainder of the 1920s along with the 1930s was filled with more training ...": suggestions anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe "The ship's crew conducted training cruises through the remainder of the 1920s and the 1930s." Always best to use active voice if possible or at least my wife tells me, when she proof-reads for me ;) Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Used your wording, although I added "diplomatic" as well. You have an in-house proofreader? So that's your secret. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. Just finished a second copyedit; comments welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Is there a way to combine "Rivadavia and Moreno participated in training exercises, diplomatic cruises, and stints ..." with "The ship's crew conducted training and diplomatic cruises ..." just 3 sentences later? - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks good on the first quick read I gave so far. Good job Ed and all. WikiProject Argentina -- Alexf(talk) 22:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. 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.
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.

Courageous class battlecruiser[edit]

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think that it meets the standard and it's part of my nefarious scheme to bring all the British BCs up to FA class. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the first and third paras of "design and description" have slightly different accounts of the importance of the 'Baltic project' to the design - there should probably be only one paragraph discussing the Baltic project, setting out all the relevant points of view. The Land (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any views on this point? I think ti's quite an important one... The Land (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Just a few technical comments at the moment. I will come back after I've read the article a few times:
    • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
    • alt text could be added to the images, although this is not a requirement (suggestion only);
    • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the lead "...lessons learned thus far during the war" doesn't sound quite right to me, can I suggest rewording to "...the lessons that had been learned earlier in the war"?
      • Agreed
    • in the lead, I suggest wikilinking "barbette" if the article exists,
      • Done
    • in the Design section you have "15-inch" and then "eighteen-inch", I think it would be best if eighteen-inch was displayed as "18-inch";
      • Done
    • in the Design section, this - "...philosophy of speed over everything" - sounds a little strange to me, like it is missing a word. Perhaps try this: "...philosophy of speed over everything else"?
    • in the Design section, "The best example of this is from a letter..." seems a little awkward. Perhaps try this: "Fisher's adherence to this principle is highlighted in a letter he wrote to Churchill concerning the battlehsips of the 1912-13 Naval Estimates. In the letter, dated April 1912, Fisher stated: "There must be sacrifice of..."
    • "Fisher's desire for a shallow draught was not merely based on a desire..." The word "desire" is mentioned twice in this sentence, perhaps reword?
      • Need instead of desire will suffice, I think.
    • Same issue with "thus far" as mentioned in the lead - thus far indicates present tense (to my ear, at least), but it should be in past tense, so perhaps "at that point of the war" or something similar;
      • How does it read now?
        • Looks good, and good work decyphering my cryptic comment (I just realised how poorly I phrased this point!) AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "reevaluation" I think should be hyphenated as "re-evaluation";
      • Done.
    • in the Protection section, it says "After the Battle of Jutland 110 long tons...of extra protection was added to the deck..." Why was this? I seem to remember reading something somewhere about one of the Royal Navy ships blowing up at Jutland, but can't remember the details - was this the reason?
    • in the Ships section, the information included in the table probably needs citations;
    • in the Post-war history section, "reused" I think should be hyphenated as "re-used";
      • Is this a Brit English thing? Because my dictionary doesn't use a hyphen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly, I'd just go with your dictionary if that's what it says. Its no major drama. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Post-war history section, the Main article link would probably look better I think if it were directly under the section title rather than in the middle of the section. Either, that or the link to the Courageous class aircraft carrier article could be added in to the prose. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Only a few minor nitpicks

  • "The Courageous class were a class of three battlecruisers" or "...was a class of three battlecruisers"? Personally I'd say it should be "was" because class is singular, but English has some odd rules.
    • I always reword this kind of thing if possible, because one way sounds just wrong to Americans and the other way sounds just wrong to Brits.
  • The repetition of "supposedly" (in the lead and first para of Design and description) makes the text come across as uncertain and even teasing. Were they designed for the Baltic or not? Was there some subterfuge going on behind the scenes?
    • Great question. Enquiring minds want to know. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh, I was waiting for the big reveal while reading through. EyeSerenetalk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Supposedly is there because it was only one reason used to justify the existence of these ships; Fisher said that was why to one person and used other reasons to other people. Roberts is the only source who covers their origin in some detail and even he doesn't come to any conclusion. "... the evidence in the case of the three large light cruisers is far from clear. It seems likely that while Fisher did, initially, see them primarily for this role [Baltic Project] he never had an absolutely fixed plan in mind. His statements as to their purpose varied from time to time and it seems much more rational that he envisaged a number of roles for the ships which affected the requirements of the design."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Strumvogel, that makes it much clearer. I've tried a little rewording - what do you think? Please rv if you're not happy with my tweaks. EyeSerenetalk 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...three divisions of minesweepers, eight German: sperrbrechers (cork-filled trawlers) and two trawlers..." I don't think you need the link to German language in the middle of this sentence; it breaks up the sentence and makes it difficult to parse.
    • Agreed, about to delete that link. On the question of whether to use the German word: it's often a hard call, it is here, I trust SVs judgment generally on these, and this English-language Google search does seem to support that the word is widely used in English sources. Btw, "cork-filled trawlers" is probably not the parenthetical definition I would use based on what I saw in the links; I saw minesweepers, minesweepers with flak cannons, minesweepers that used huge magnets, etc.
      • I'd have thought "eight sperrbrechers (appropriate definition) and two trawlers..." would be fine - from the context it's clear that it's a German word. EyeSerenetalk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sperrbrecher is a complicated word. In WWI it's used for ships designed to clear minefields by hitting the mines and were filled with cork, etc. to allow them to survive the explosion. I'm uncertain if they usually operated normal minesweeping gear during the war or not. In WW2 it was used for small minesweepers of about the same size as in WWI that were often used as escorts for coastal convoys and consequently fitted with flak guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A light copyedit might be beneficial when you head FAC-wards, but other than that all I can say is congratulations on yet another well-researched, interesting article :) EyeSerenetalk 11:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Another fine article - well done all. EyeSerenetalk 16:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One light copyedit, coming up. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Can anyone tell me if "learned" sounds plain wrong to British ears? If so, we'll have to go with "learnt" (ugh). - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Learnt" is preferred in Br-E, but personally I wouldn't object too much to "learned". I think "learned" probably sounds less odd to British ears than "learnt" does to Americans, though it does sound juvenile (at least to me)... by which I mean it's the kind of thing British children say when they first discover the past participle -ed ending and use it inappropriately (ie "singed" instead of "sang"/"sung"). EyeSerenetalk 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, okay that's what I was afraid of, I'm rewriting that sentence to avoid "learned". - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. A few questions:

  • turret, not turret (fixed ... just mentioning it because it keeps coming up)
    • Just me being lazy, I'll try to remember next time.
  • "To save time, the installation used ...": design time? construction time?
    • Design.
  • What does "T.I." mean in "triple T.I."?
  • What are "PI* mounts"?
    • Got rid of both designations.
  • "as it lacked the layers of empty and full compartments": that might be fine like it is, but would "and" be better than "as"?
    • No, because there's a causal relationship between the two clauses.
  • Does "reached their absolute limit of advance" mean something different from "stopped"?
    • Yes (sort of). They reached a line on their maps past which they were forbidden to pass because of mines. Stopped implies lack of movement.
      • Okay, I tried "At 9:30 the 1st CS reached the line they had been ordered not to cross due to the threat of mines"; see if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still not great. This is easily dealt with in military jargon like "stop line", but then you have to define it, which is hard to do so that it reads easily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What would be better? - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I tweaked it to say "limit of its assigned combat area", but if it's important to mention the mines it could say "approached an area thought to be mined so the pursuit was broken off" or something? EyeSerenetalk 16:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think that you're in the right ballpark; right now I'm thinking along the long of "turned south to avoid minefields marked on their maps" or some such. It should tie in, I think, to the fact that the Admiralty's information on minefields was not distributed equally to all ships so that Courageous and Glorious turned aside from an area that the light cruisers charged blithely into. This needs to be added to the article on the battle at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Courageous fired 92 rounds of 15 inch while Glorious fired 57. They also fired 180 and 213 four-inch shells respectively.": seems like it belongs in the previous paragraph. You're the boss, but I'm wondering how many readers need this much detail.
    • Beats me, but I'm hardly a typical reader. But I always like to add that sort of gunnery detail to show how infrequently they actually hit anything. I added a bit reminding the reader that they only scored a single hit for all of those big shells expended.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support minor issues that I brought up have all been addressed. One issue of wording has not been addressed but I am reasonably certain that it will be resolved. Since it is insignificant, there is no reason not to support this nomination. Comment - a few picky c/e questions I wanted to run by you :] I'm prone to being clueless about convention + such, so feel free to correct me. It's improved a lot since it was first put up for A-class review !

  • "The first two Courageous-class battlecruisers were designed in 1915 to meet a set of requirements laid down with his Baltic Project in mind by the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, Admiral Fisher." (section: Design and description)
    • I'm aware this sentence has been changed (Dank?) - however, the way the sentence is structured leaves me a little lost. It's definitely more clear than "supposedly for his Baltic Project." Perhaps "The first two Courageous-class battlecruisers were designed in 1915 to meet a set of requirements that First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, Admiral Fisher laid down with his Baltic Project in mind."? Feedback?
      • Not mine; see above.
        • I do like that phrasing better.
  • "Fisher's desire for a shallow draught was not merely based on the need to allow for inshore operations, but reflected the lesson that ships tended to operate closer to deep load than anticipated and were found lacking in freeboard, reserve buoyancy and safety against underwater attack." (section: Design and description)
    • "Lesson" works, but doesn't feel quite appropriate - maybe "knowledge"? comments?
      • See if you like what I did. (<- that was Dank)
        • Yes indeed I like it. Thank you ! Icy // ♫ 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main guns of the Courageous-class ships were controlled from either of the two fire-control directors." (section: Fire-control)
    • I'm hesitant to change it to "... ships could be controlled from either..." because I don't know if that would change the meaning and potentially falsify the sentence. Are specific guns controlled by specific directors? It doesn't seem that way, but I am no expert and can't be sure.
      • Seems okay, but I agree that this is a place where the reader might be unclear and might want to know more, if anyone wants to elaborate. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, either director could control either turret. No specific assignments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, great - no apparent objections, so I've added that in. Icy // ♫ 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A preliminary raid on German minesweeping forces on 31 October by light forces destroyed ten small ships and the Admiralty decided on a larger operation to destroy the minesweepers and their escorting light cruisers." (section: Second Battle of Heligoland Bight)
    • Did the Admiralty decide on such the larger operation due to the previous raid's success? If so then maybe you can break up the sentence specifying that where you have "... and the Admiralty..." right now.
      • If the sources say why certain decisions were made, we can repeat that, although personally I often doubt that the sources are wise or knowledgeable enough to be sure about intentions. But if the sources don't say, then we shouldn't insert that; it's okay to let the reader infer the connection, though. - Dank (push to talk)
        • I'm not at home right now and can't check the exact wording, but my memory is that the Admiralty wasn't satisfied with the success of the first op and wanted a bigger bag the second time around.
          • Unless you will be home pretty soon and will have a chance to check that out (and it's not too much of a bother), I'm not going to fuss. Thanks ! Icy // ♫ 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 required the signatory nations to severely curtail their plans for new warships as well as scrapping others." (section: Post-war history)
    • Eh... I'm a little lost here. The tenses feel a little mixed up - unless the Treaty itself is scrapping plans for new warships, I can't see why it isn't "required the signatory nations to severely curtail their plans for new warships as well as scrap others." Care to explain?

Overall the article reads pretty nicely now (thank the awesome previous c/e'rs). I've made a few corrections of my own on the main article. Of course you can always disagree, give feedback, etc.  :] Icy // ♫ 14:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Westfalen[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Yet another German battleship, this was one of the first dreadnoughts built by the German navy. I wrote this in May and it passed GA review last month. Dank has copy-edited the article as well. I appreciate the time all reviewers take in checking the article against the A-class criteria. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: just a quick technical review to get the ACR started (I will come back later after reading the article a couple of times):
    • there are two dab links according to the tools that need fixing: [8]
    • no external links, so none are broken (no action required);
    • images have alt text (no action required);
    • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the lead two paragraphs in a row begin with "The ship", which seems a little repetitive;
    • not sure if this is important, but as a lay person I couldn't help but wonder why a hegagonal configuration of Westfalen's guns was "unusual";
    • what is a "fleet advance"?
    • "In late March the ship went into drydock for..." What year is this? Is it 1915?
    • in the Battle of the Gulf of Riga section, "In August, the German fleet attempted ..." I think this should be "August 1915" to make it clear to the readers;
    • "promoted to Vice Admiral" I think should be "promoted to vice admiral" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms
    • in the Battle of the Gulf of Riga section sometimes you have a capital "Gulf" and then at other times a lower case "gulf". For example: "...destroy the Russian naval forces in the Gulf" and then "...the northern entrance to the gulf". I think they should all be capitalised as it is, in this case, a proper noun;
    • in the Fate section, perhaps a little bit of an explaination could be given as to why the majority of the High Seas Fleet was interned in Scapa Flow. Perhaps the addition of this clause after the first sentence might help: "...interned in Scapa Flow, under the terms of the Armistice agreement."
    • in the References section some of the ISBNs have hyphens and some don't. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with all your comments and that's very helpful, you make me a better copyeditor, Rupert. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, no worries at all. I'm very impressed with your copy editing contributions, Dank. We don't have many editors who are keen to do this sort of work, but it is very necessary and appreciated. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You've just added Note 2 and you're probably working on this anyway, but it needs a ref. I finally have Gröner, and that information isn't on pp. 23-24. I'll be happy to look through my library for this information if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the relevant page numbers from Conway's. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, and I like the format. Ick ... $125 new or used on Amazon, I'll pass. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What, for Conway's? That's ridiculous, I paid like $50-60 when I got it. But then that was a couple of years ago now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep. Conway's 1922-46 was cheaper, I've got that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't know if this pushes it into your budget, but I found a couple copies on alibris.com for around $85 here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks much Nate, they had one for $50 plus shipping and tax, it's on the way. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Staff, p. 26 says she joined "I Squadron" on 3 May and became the flagship on 5 May. I don't know if other sources contradict this. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article now says, "... until 3 May. Two days later Westfalen was transferred to the I Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet." You're saying she was transferred 5 May; Staff says 3 May. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see. I don't have Staff in front of me, so feel free to change it. Parsecboy (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • My only quibbles are was she coal or oil fired? And Helsinki should probably be used throughout rather than Helsingfors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a line on the boilers, but as for Helsingfors/Helsinki, wasn't the city known by the former during this period? That's how Staff referred to the city, and so does Paul Halpern in his account of the operation. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Helsingfors was the name during WWI. I got dinged for it on one of my Russian BB articles by somebody who referenced some obscure bit about names in the MOS so it might be worth checking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added "(now Helsinki)" at the first occurrence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support
Only a couple of points from me:

  • The citation check tool reports one instance of multiple refs containing the same content (Staff, p. 19);, and  Done
  • What caused the damage to Westfalen's boiler?

Overall a very good article and I intend to support. Anotherclown (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Staff is in general quite dense, and several articles that use it as a reference cite it many times from the same page ... did that answer the question AC? - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He meant this; there were two citations to the page that weren't merged with the "ref name=" parameter. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep thats it, apologies for being indistinct! Anotherclown (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as for the damage to Westfalen's boilers, Staff doesn't say. I'd assume mechanical problems. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Moving to support now, good work. Anotherclown (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments in the edit history. Also:

  • "Westfalen stood off Reval where she organized the invasion force" is unclear, and I'm not sure what to do with it.
  • Nate, sometimes you italicize en route and sometimes not. I don't have a preference, but consistency would be good. merriam-webster.com supports italics; Webster's NWD and AP are silent. As I recall, it's usually not italicized. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARA Moreno[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan)


Moreno was a product of the early 1900s South American naval arms race, a topic which I need to write an article on. That and the intrigue surrounding her construction are the most interesting parts of the article (I believe Argentina should have sold Rivadavia and Moreno, what do you think?) Virtually all of Moreno's active life was spent on diplomatic visits and training cruises, barring a 1924–25 modernization in the United States, and she was scrapped in 1956. Any and all comments are welcome and appreciated. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This is a strong article, but I think that it needs a bit more polishing to reach A class:
    • The detailed material on the diplomatic and political maneuvering concerning the ships probably belongs in the article on the class rather than the articles on the individual ships
    • The prose needs a copy edit. Some examples:
      • "She was named after Mariano Moreno, a key member of the Primera Junta, and she was the second of two Rivadavia-class battleships; her sister was Rivadavia Moreno was launched on 23 September 1911 and completed in March 1915." - should be two sentences, and I'm suspect that this is too much information on her sister for the lead
      • "This angered the American government, as the ships had been built with the latest advances in American warship technology" - was the US Government upset about its technology being unappreciated (as is implied by the text) or was it concerned about this being transferred to other countries
      • "The Argentine government, bolstered by socialist gains in the legislature, refused to back down. No less than three bills proposing the sale of the battleships were introduced in May 1914, but all were defeated by late June." - these two sentences seem to contradict each other. I presume what they mean is that the Government was determined to sell the ships, but could never get the numbers to do so in the legislature.
        I made some edits; does this one work for both of you? "The Argentine government, bolstered by socialist gains in the legislature, supported several bills introduced in the legislature in May 1914 proposing the sale of the battleships, but all were defeated by late June." - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • While I don't know how the Argentine government operated now or in 1914, I imagine that the government introduced bills rather than merely "supported" them and the three bills were introduced successively rather than simultaneously. Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Schenia isn't specific here, but three bills proposed in May and defeated by June? Even with the less bureaucracy of those times, that seems rather quick... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Does Schenia say who or what office introduced the bills? - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Unless stated elsewhere, it's reasonable to assume that the government introduced the bills (as is standard for parliamentary-type government structures). Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oops, I meant Livermore, and he doesn't. "Recent elections in Argentina had resulted in socialist gains, and the naval attache reported a strong sentiment in congress in favor of selling the ships and using the money to open more schools. The question was fought out at the session of the chamber of deputies in May and was not decided until after a prolonged and bitter struggle. [...] Three bills favoring the sale of the dreadnoughts were introduced and debated in secret session. The forces of economy and retrenchment were led by a distinguished statesman, Senor Drago, but in the end the naval party triumphed. On June 22 Lorillard reported that the bills had been defeated, and the charge warned against further delay in turning the vessels over to the Argentine republic." (Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 46). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The beginning of the First World War reopened these rumors" - suggest "the" rather than "these" as the rumours haven't been referred to in the para
      • "The German and British ambassadors both complained to the United States' Department of State" - were these the ambassadors to the US or Argentina?
      • "For the United States, this was an unheard-of feature, as alcohol had been banned on US Navy ships" - as alcohol was served on Royal Navy vessels this probably wasn't "unheard of" to Americans with an interest in naval matters
      • "Moreno was forced to put in at Rockland, Maine—where many of the observers on board were left to be brought back by train to Camden—before proceeding to the Fore River Shipyard in Massachusetts for repairs. Fore River was utilized because that company built the engines that were installed in the ship." - the second sentence here is a bit awkward
      • "Moreno was given to waiting Argentine sailors" - I presume you mean she was delivered to the government? The current text suggests she was a present to the impatient sailors ;)
      • "She was immediately assigned to the Argentine Navy's First Division, based out the major naval base of Puerto Belgrano, where she remained until 1923, when she was put into the reserve fleet." - suggest changing this to two sentances
      • "As Argentina remained neutral in the war, Moreno was utilized little" - this is awkward and unclear. If Argentina stayed out of the war, how was she used at all? Moreover, did she stay in port during this period?
        I tried to respond to the other points, Nick and Ed, but I don't know what to do with this one; I don't know what the ship did during the war. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No one else is real specific either. To me, it implies that she saw a little service in patrolling or something, but it doesn't state that explicitly. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "13 short tons (12 long tons; 12 t) of tallow were needed to grease the slipways for the launch." - probably not all that important ;)
    • Are there any specialist works on the Argentine Navy which could be consulted? The Spanish-language Wikipedia references a book entitled Battleships and Cruisers of Argentina. which seems worth consulting prior to a FAC, if at all possible. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, as I cannot read Spanish. :) I'm not planning on bringing it to FAC without those; I'm hoping DPdH can help with that, but he hasn't responded to me as of yet. Thanks for the review, Nick. My articles tend to get a lot better after you've looked them over. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me know if/when the new material has been worked in and I'll be happy to look it over. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - just to help the closing coordinator, that comment is relevant to a FAC and not this ACR. Thanks for your kind comment Ed - I'd say the same about your reviews. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, the article on es.wiki is 3 short paragraphs, with no refs, just a bibliography ... why do we think that Spanish-language book might be important? Because of the title? - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There seems to be no reason to assume that the es.wiki article is in any sense 'complete' and this appears to be only book covering this topic in detail I could find so it's worth consulting in order to ensure that FA criterion 1(c) is met. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, there's a copy of the book available at Notre Dame: [9]. Parsecboy (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User talk:DPdH added the book as a ref to another article and I've left a message for them, though they may not be around. If they don't respond, I'll get it through ILL. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My above comments are now addressed - great work Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Just a couple to start of with (sorry, I'd meant to be more thorough, but I'm falling asleep here). I will come back tomorrow:
    • No dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
    • image(s) are appropriately licenced IMO (no action required);
    • the image could have alt text added to it (suggestion);
    • in the lead "This followed a series of mishaps" - should this be: "This was followed by a series of mishaps"? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • there was an italics issue, but I've rectified this, other than that I couldn't really find anything that I could think of that needed fixing. Looks pretty good to me, although, as I've said before I don't know that much about ships. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the review and fix! I've copyedited that part of the lead, feel free to take a look —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put in an ILL order yesterday on Acorazados y cruceros de la armada argentina, 1881-1992, but the closest copy is at Notre Dame (535 miles away), and my library says they don't usually do ILLs outside the Southeast ... but they're going to try to get it anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book just arrived from Notre Dame yesterday via ILL, I've shared the relevant material with Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Link to Swiftsure class battleship in the line about the Chilean battleships being purchased, and whatever cruiser class it was that Argentina was attempting to acquire.
    • Do you know the details of the refit in the mid 1920s?
    • In the lead: "This was followed by a series of engine problems" seems out of place. What is the "this" to which is being referred? The delivery to Argentina? Also, I prefer at least two paragraphs in the lead, could you split the paragraph in two? Also, it bears mentioning in the lead that the ship was ordered in response to Brazilian naval expansion and border disputes.
    • This is no biggie, but are there any other pictures that could be used in the article?
  • All in all, an excellent article, Ed. I look forward to supporting it for A-class. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links added, lead tweaked and fixed, refit will have to wait for tomorrow (aka early tomorrow morning). Pictures are a negative until the LOC emails me back, and if they give me a negative, then my answer will still be negative. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'd like to see a brief written description of the ship.
  • No armor section in the infobox
  • Needs a conversion for the shp in the infobox--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second two done. I don't normally add a written description in my individual ship articles; I leave that to the class articles... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 09:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with that is that it makes everything in the infobox uncited which is a real problem. It's worth a paragraph or two, IMO, to get past that issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support pending the addition of the above comments. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "... both were delivered and kept. When Moreno was completed, ... Moreno was finally delivered ...": something in there isn't working for me; chronological order would help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph, does Whitley really mention November 1939 and then imply that sometime later, WWII broke out in Europe? Sounds odd. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per usual disclaimer. I've done a second copyedit, and comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 11:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Indefatigable (1909)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I've further cleaned up the article and I'm trying to get it ready for a FAC for OMT.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments just a few to get the review started (sorry, I will come back later and do a more thorough review):
    • there are no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
    • images should be okay for A class, but for FAC you might want to consider whether the "life of author + 70 years" licence is appropriate on the sketch from Brassey's (it says author not identified, so we can’t reasonably make a judgement of when he/she died, thus making it not possible to determine when it would be PD);
      • Copyright is OK since it was published in 1923. Individual artist is irrelevant since it was a work for hire and Brassey's owns the copyright, which has expired.
        • Understood, however, what I'm saying is that its licence is relying upon the death of an author that it states is "not identified" (thus it is not possible to determine that they died 70 years ago). Is there a licence that could be added that relies on the fact of its publication prior to 1923 (e.g. maybe {{PD-1923}}), rather than {{PD-Old}} which relies on the death of its author when said author is not identified? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, now I understand. I've swapped out the image for one from the 1915 Brassey's which has no copyright issues at all. The original image used that odd , and inappropriate, license because the image was actually still in copyright as it was a work for hire and it wasn't published _before_ 1923, but rather in 1923.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • alt text could be added to the images (this is a suggestion, not a requirement);
    • can publisher information be added to citation # 8 ("British 12 pdr")?
      • Certainly.
    • all of the ISBNs in the References section have hyphens except one, could you add these in, or remove the others for consistency (this is not a major drama if you can't);
    • in the second paragraph of the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau section there is a quotation mark sitting out of place (I think), after this sentence "...clear orders to "chase Goeben" which had passed Cape Matapan on the 7th steering north-east." Milne..." (the problem is the quotation mark before Milne). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the second paragraph of the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau section, should "Goeben" be in italics in this sentence: "...he set sail for Cape Matapan, where Goeben had been spotted...";
      • Another good catch.
    • In the second paragraph (same as above) I suggest breaking up this sentence: "At 2:30 p.m. he received an incorrect signal from the Admiralty stating that Britain was at war with Austria-Hungary, war would not be declared until 12 August, and the order was countermanded four hours later, but Milne followed his standing orders to guard the Adriatic against an Austrian breakout attempt, rather than hunt for Goeben". I suggest adding a full stop after "at war with Austria-Hungary" and then starting a new sentence with: "War would not be declared, however, until...";
      • Good idea.
    • In the last paragraph (beginning On 3 November 1914) the contraction "didn't" should probably be changed to "did not" to make it sound more encyclopedic (...by Britain agaisnt the Ottoman Empire which didn't...);
      • Fixed
    • There is another instance of the use of the word "didn't" in the first paragraph of the Battle of Jutland section ("...but Beatty's ships didn't spot...");
      • Fixed
    • In the Battle of Jutland section you could link the word "astern" to the Glossary of nautical terms as some readers might not know what it means (same with amidships, etc.);
      • Always a hard call to judge how much vocabulary readers know.
    • In the Battle of Jutland section some of your times do not state whether it is am or pm;
      • Only the first time is given am or pm; any change would be noted.
        • No dramas, just wanted to clarify if it was deliberate or an oversight. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this sentence you use the word "while" twice in close proximity, "...aimed at Von der Tann while New Zealand targeted at Moltke while remaining unengaged herself" (perhaps it could be reworded slighty?);
      • Done
    • In the final sentence of the Battle of Jutland section, you have "Von der Tann only fired 52 28 cm...". In this case it might be clearer for the reader's understanding (I did a double take when reading it) to spell out 52 as "fifty-two" because of the 28 cm beside it (the MOS does allow this, I believe). AustralianRupert (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, but the MOS values consistency over readability, but done regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • Initial look at the article shows me that the lede could be a tad longer, although that's not major
    • Broken out into two paras.
  • The lede and inital section contains a lot of naval jargon that is almost impenetrable to me. To take the lede, what was Invincible, and who built it? And what's significant of it being enlarged for those turrets? When was she commissioned, and what did she do before the war began? The lede reads like it was written purely for OMT and naval readers, and really isn't reader-friendly for anyone else.
    • Rephrased the lead to reference the Invincible-class BCs. How is the significance of the extra length not explained? I don't understand what the issue is. She was commissioned before WWI and she did nothing of significance before the start of the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think her commissioning date should be in the lede, but fair enough on the rest of the comment. Skinny87 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a sentence to the lede that provides her dates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a lot more background in the 'Description'. I know very little of the intricacies of pre-WWI British naval development, and giving me the statement 'Indefatigable was ordered as the lone battlecruiser of the 1908–9 programme' just makes me more confused. What programme? What was the impetus behind it being built? Who ordered it - I assume the British government? Skinny87 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All that is addressed in the class article and Royal Navy is linked already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, a reader shouldn't have to go to another article to understand the background to this article. It needn't be much, just a paragraph, or even a couple of sentences. But at the moment a reader unfamiliar with the subject is effectively being thrown into the deepend with no context as to why the vessel was built. Skinny87 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm uncertain how to respond to this. The simple truth was that Jackie Fisher wanted more battlecruisers and one was all he could push past the Government of the day. There was no system of Staff Requirements, etc., back then; the Lords of the Admiralty simply decided what they wanted and negotiated with the Government to see what they'd accept.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hate to seem stubborn about this, but surely something can be said. What about background to the Naval Plan, or details on exactly what you just said about Fisher? I mean, it shouldn't be make-work for the sake of writing something, but at the moment there really is no context or explanation of why it was built. Skinny87 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I can't tell whether this is saying she had no more armor or a little more armor: "Essentially this was a slightly enlarged Invincible with a revised protection arrangement, a larger design with more armour and better underwater protection having been rejected for reasons of cost." - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the comma to a semi-colon to better separate the two events.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd prefer a red or blue link on BVIII*. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not prepared to start writing articles, even stubs, on the various marks of British turrets. The implications of the exact turret type are buried in discussed in the class article where all that stuff dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sounds better, 'X' barbette or barbette 'X'? - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'X' barbette is normally how they're referred to in the literature. Same with turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Low-order explosive" seems to be an overloaded term; I'm finding meanings of low explosive, "propellant", and low order-of-magnitude around the web ... a link or explanation would be nice. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added Deflagration as a synonym for low-order explosion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that a 9-foot rangefinder is 9 feet long? Are they generally characterized by length, by model or by maximum range? - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Length is the most important characteristic, followed by type or model, as more length usually means better resolution and range.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that it's going to be immediately obvious to our readers what "half-sister" (ship) means; rather than defining the term (since it's not used much), it would probably be better just to write out what you mean. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. I think that half-sister, with a link to sister ship added, quite elegantly describes the relationship between the ships in that they're closely related, but not identical.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I avoid image issues like the plague that they are, but you've got one photograph where you can barely see the ship, and one sketch. I think people might grumble at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though we've used it before, I don't think File:Jutland1916.jpg would be out of place. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, but I'm not impressed with the results. Looks rather overcrowded to my eyes. What do y'all think? Not willing to dump the photo of her sinking despite its low quality. I could add pictures of her opponents like Goeben or of her weapons mounted on other ships if you'd prefer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm crap on image issues. Let's do whatever you guys think will get through FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "blew up at about 4:03 when her magazines exploded": Does Tarrant give us a little more? I'm looking for something like "her magazines exploded and a conflagration swept the ship" or "the ship buckled" or "the ship was torn apart". "blew up" is a little informal and also doesn't really tell me what happened. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a rather sensationalistic sentence describing what she looked like exploding.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ooh, I want in on the movie rights. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another solid job, and I can support per the usual disclaimer when these issues are tackled. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • No mention of the armoured spotting and signal tower behind the conning tower, unique to Indefatigable. (Brooks. Mast and Funnel Question. p. 43.)
      • There's a brief mention in Roberts, but he doesn't say much other than it was generally inferior to the later installations in terms of visibility, protection and access to the captain/admiral. Since I don't have that article, nor am I going to be able to get the article shortly, feel free to add a little bit about that to the article. Alternatively, I'd happily take a scan and write it up myself.
    • No mention of the fact that at Jutland the captain (C. F. Sowerby) survived but wasn't saved. (Campbell. p. 61.) --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My copy of Campbell is in storage, can you elaborate on why he wasn't rescued? Did he refuse rescue?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked it up and added the relevant info. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Baden (1915)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


The last German battleship completed by the Imperial Navy, it was also the only ship prevented from sinking at Scapa Flow. The British used it for gunnery trials before sinking her in 1921. Thanks in advance to all reviewers who take the time to evaluate the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This article is in good shape, but is lacking details:
    • Did the German navy really own and manage its own shipyards? This it what's implied by "she was the last battleship completed by the Kaiserliche Marine"
    • There's almost nothing specifically about this ship in the 'Advance of 23 April 1918', 'Wilhelmshaven Mutiny' sections - at very least these need to be greatly trimmed to shorter summaries
      • I trimmed some details from both sections, but some of it can't be removed. For instance, the whole first paragraph of the 23 April section isn't about the ship, but it's necessary to set up why the fleet put to sea. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where was Baden stationed when the High Seas fleet wasn't at sea?
      • I haven't seen anything about this yet, but this book is going to be released on the 22nd, and it should have that information in it (based on the first volume of the pair). Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing in the book about where the ship was based. When the ship was in the North Sea it would have been either Wilhelmshaven or Cuxhaven, but I haven't seen anything specifically about where III Squadron spent most of its time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did she arrive at Invergordon? (and why was she sent there?)
      • I haven't seen a date (or even month) for the arrival, the article in Warship 2007 is the only thing I've seen that discusses the post-Scapa fate of the ship, and it doesn't have a date. As for why, Invergordon was a major naval base with better facilities than Scapa or Rosyth. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How did the British acquire the legal right to pull Baden apart and then use her for target practice? - did they receive the ship under the peace treaty?
      • Not specifically, but Article 184 renounces Germany's ownership of the vessel, and since the ship was in Britain's possession, and as Honoré de Balzac would say, possession is nine tenths of the law. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnotes 1 and 5 need references
      • Do I really need a reference for the definition of Ersatz? That the ship was a replacement for the old Worth is also cited in the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit surprised that File:Salvage at Scapa Flow.jpg isn't used Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That image is quite small and hard to make out. Hopefully Staff's book will have that image in it so I can scan and overwrite the current version. I did add File:SMS Baden towed from Scapa.jpg, which, though also small and grainy, at least has the virtues of being more of a dramatic shot. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links (no action required);
    • no issues with ext links (no action required);
    • images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • only one of the images appears to have alt text, could it be added to the others? (note, this is a suggestion, not a requirement);
    • is "Wilhelmshaven Mutiny" a proper noun, or an improper noun? The article itself seems to treat it as an improper noun (hence mutiny is not capitalised), thus please consider whether or not you should capitalise Mutiny in the heading;
    • some of the ISBNs in the References section have hyphens but others don't;
    • the year ranges in the titles in the References sections should have endashes, e.g. Herwig, The NY Times, Schwartz and Weir;
    • In the short notes you have "Preston", but shouldn't this actually be "Schleihauf", as the author who is contributing a chapter in the Preston work? AustralianRupert (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I'm not sure why I had done it that way in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I don't like use of standard displacement and full combat load, although I understand that you may have had some objections during earlier FACs to the proper terminology. Deep load is defined in the displacement article, IIRC.
    • I'm not quite clear what you mean. Are you unhappy with the word choice (i.e., "standard" displacement was standardized at the WNC and thus anachronistic?) Can you clarify for me please? Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, the anachronism bugs me, although normal load raises its own questions.
  • Provide conversions for the shp figures in the main body.
  • Although implied that Baden sailed in the Advance paragraph, it's probably best to explicitly mention it.
  • pull it aground? Who did the pulling? I rather think that you meant to say "ran it aground".
  • Gunnery training or tests?
    • Where are you talking about? Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This bit: In January 1921 the first round of gunnery training was ordered. The gunners at HMS Excellent fired the new armor-piercing (AP) shells that had been introduced after the Battle of Jutland. This round of tests was used to determine the most efficient ratio of explosives in the detonator caps; the shells fired at Jutland had a tendency to fragment when striking heavy armor rather than penetrate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that should be "tests" or similar. I've fixed that. Parsecboy (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link monitor for those unfamiliar with the ship type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm short on time; I'm going to copyedit for MOS and style things that might be a problem at FAC, and I'd appreciate it if someone else can fix the obvious stuff like missing periods and weird dates.
  • Comments On Kaiserliche Marine vs. German Imperial Navy ... the English term seemed to predominate in English sources, does anyone know different? - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose. There's too much to fix here, sorry ... no period at the end of the first paragraph, I fixed the misspelled "in", etc. What I'm really hoping is that someone other than Parsecboy will step up and fix this; I think it hurts our output when we make writers think that they're supposed to be copyediting their own stuff. That's not generally required by the publishing industry, because ideally, you want good writers to spend their time researching and writing, not obsessing over details, it's not efficient. That's why I've been doing some copyediting at A-class reviews, but for a couple of months at least, I'm only going to have time to do it for the articles where someone has already gone through fixing the obvious problems, like missing periods and misspellings. I'm opposing only because an article shouldn't be promoted with obvious punctuation and spelling errors, with no slap intended at Parsecboy at all, he's a great and productive writer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note, meine Frau, who is quite good at these things, is going to have a look at the article sometime in the next few days; she's helped in the past, though usually in a more "behind the scenes" manner. And no offense taken, Dank, I know you mean well. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like good stuff ... you're welcome to jump in any time, Parsecgirl. Also, the Guild of Copy Editors is going to be running a contest during July, I think I'll hop over and ask for help. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "almost grounded, ... though no major damage was done" sounds better to my non-nautical ear than "slightly grounded", but it's your call. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please track down the meter/metre inconsistencies. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the commander in chief of the fleet, Admiral Reinhard Scheer" doesn't sound quite right to me but you guys know better than I what you want to do with titles. If you keep it, it needs a comma after Scheer. - Dank (push to talk) 00:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm wait, it doesn't work to say that and then "... Reinhard Scheer—the Grand Admiral (Großadmiral) of the fleet—intended ..." four lines later, unless you say something like "newly appointed" to contrast, and even then I'd feel confused; I'd want to know if that was a promotion or demotion and what it meant if it's mentioned. Would it work for you to stick with just "Admiral" one place or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the "Schwartz48" ref from SMS Helgoland covers the point that the red flag was the red flag of the socialists, I'd prefer to see the ref and "of the Socialists" added. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like it could be more concise, but I'm afraid if I cut something I'll alter the meaning: "After the ship arrived in Invergordon, Baden was carefully examined by Royal Navy technicians. Naval engineers inspected the hull, including the screws, bilge keels, and rudders, to determine the water resistance of the hull form. The ship was found to have been approximately as efficient as the British Royal Sovereign-class battleships. The ship's armor system was extensively investigated ..." - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now we're looking good; thanks for the work, Anotherclown, and I can support per the usual disclaimer after these issues are tackled. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the edits ... now supporting, although of course further edits by Parsecgirl or anyone else are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


*CommentsSupport

    • I've had a bit of a chop at copy editing some parts, so please review my changes and revert or tweak as required;
    • You mention in the lead that: Baden "...was the last battleship completed for the Kaiserliche Marine; two of her sisters—Sachsen and Württemberg—were incomplete when the war ended." I don't see this in the body of the article anywhere, nor is it referenced;
    • Its a minor gripe but I think there may be a little overuse of headings, even if you deleted the 'Gunnery target' subheading and just made that part of the 'British service' heading that might be an improvement (just a suggestion though and I won't oppose on this basis);
      • I removed the "Gunnery target" header. My main concern in using headings is to avoid walls of text by subdividing as I see necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall, a good article which I am happy to support once a final copy edit is done, per Dank's comments. Anotherclown (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have struck most of my comments now, just waiting for that copy edit. BTW Nate you're lucky, my wife hates Wiki... in fact I have to deploy just to use it in peace now (when the welfare computers are working that is)! Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good work, looks like everything has been taken care of. Changing to support. Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 10:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of battlecruisers of Russia[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I intend to send this to FLC and I think that an ACR is a worthwhile step to get into shape.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Good work so far. Am not entirely sure how the A-class criteria apply to lists, but here goes... The Land (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A1. I think a few citations in the prose section on the Borodinos are necessary as there aren't any at the moment. Also see below.
Good catch, that's what I get for replacing the former text wholesale. I'll add some shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A2. Largely there, but a few comments on details :-
First and second sentence of lead. What is the source for the first sentence about how the Russians intended, in 1905, to use their armoured cruisers. Also I am not sure that the citation to Roberts justifies the statement "This concept was very different from the primary roles for the battlecruiser envisioned by the British Royal Navy and the Imperial German High Seas Fleet". Reading Roberts' list of roles for the battlecruiser it gives the impression that using speed to engage the head of the line was indeed a function of the battlecruisers 'so long as the enemy battleships were engaged'. So, while I can see the motivation behind what the article says currently, I don't think it's quite right. And also I think that this particular point might better belong in the section in the Borodinos, than at the very start of the article.
While Roberts may list that as one of the BC's roles, the Brits never seemed to think of using them that way. If they had then they would never have built the Queen Elizabeths, which were designed specifically for that role. I think that Roberts was being comprehensive and listing the Russian doctrine in with all the others. I need to think on your other points.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not quite clear what Roberts is talking about - but since he scarcely mentions the Russian navy in his book at all, it's unlikely that he is encompassing Russian sources. So a different citation needs to be provided for the sentence starting "this concept..." - though I'm sceptical that the Russian concept of employment was actually that different from the British/German one. The Land (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This area is my only remaining concern with the article. The Land (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stand by the statement that the Russians were primarily concerned engaging the van with all other roles secondary, unlike the Germans and Brits who viewed that role as secondary. Remember that the Borodinos actually had _more_ armor than did the Gangut class dreadnoughts; armor that they'd need to survive against enemy dreadnoughts in the van, unlike the Brits who preferred only to do that if the enemy dreadnought was otherwise engaged.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right - but I still think this statement needs sourcing, and I don't see anything in Roberts Battlecruisers to support it. There must, somewhere, be an appropriate source for it....The Land (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced already from McLaughlin. I just had to move the cite one sentence over, which is why you probably didn't notice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see some armour statistics quoted in the summary tables.
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the key, you say "displacement" is "full combat load". This isn't one of the standard measures of displacement for warships, which are "design" displacement (ie. a configuration selected by the designers to yield the design draft), "deep" or "full" displacement (all stores, crew, fuel, ammunition feedwater), and, after 1922, "standard" displacement (no fuel or feedwater but all ammunition). Breyer in Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World lists 32,500t as the design displacement for the Borodinos. The displacement figure used probably needs to be standardised, rechecked, and corrected if necessary.
Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A3 Yes, particularly once the earlier comments about the lead are dealt with.
A4 Yes
A5 A few issues which probably aren't a bar to A-class but will inevitably be raised at FAC:
File:IzmailConstruction.jpg in the lead - the source doesn't link to the correct image. Copyright information is missing. I think that Russia/Soviet Union have usually worked on a 50-year rule after the death of the artist; if the artist was unknown, then it is probably reasonable to suppose they died before 1960 since the photo dates from 1915. However, you need to check this, and more source information would be very desirable.
Fixed the link. The ultimate source is a copy-vio scan of a Russian magazine that I don't intend to link to. I strongly suspect that the original picture is out of copyright because of its age, but have no way to prove it.
What evidence is there that the image is what it claims to be? Wouldn't it be clearer to link to [10]? The Land (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always assumed that in the wonderful world of fair-use that it was best to link exactly to the image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kronshtadt3.jpg The source link provided doesn't work. This kind of image needs to be traced to a reliable source; if it's speculative, it needs to be marked as such. If it's speculative, then it probably also doesn't count as 'fair use'.
I'm fairly certain that this matches the drawing in the McLaughlin article, although I don't have it to hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Stalingrad2vew.jpg Was Roberts the originator of this image, or was he reproducing some original technical plans? If the latter, they may be out of copyright. If the former, then I think strictly speaking this isn't a "fair use", and a free alternative needs to be created by someone re-drawing it (!!!)
Roberts?!! The source is given and Roberts has nothing to do with it. I'll use the image until somebody actually redraws it for lack of anything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the first description box says, Author: John Roberts ? The Land (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, quite right; I wasn't looking at the first box. Roberts is well known as a nautical draughtsman; he may have based it on plans, but I don't think that that would make it copyright-free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "fate" an appropriate encyclopedic word, as opposed to "status" YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In AmEng it doesn't have any odd connotations, but if it sounds wrong to Indian or British or any other ears, I don't mind if you change it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Fate" is the word I would use in British English. "Status" sounds a little forced. The Land (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only use status if any ships survived today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • There are no dab links, all external links check out and the citation checking tool reveals no errors (no action required); and
    • I have made a number of very minor tweaks, please confirm if you're happy with these changes and revert if you're not.
    • Overall I can find very little at fault as this is an excellent list IMO, which meets the A class criteria. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Generally looks fine to me, but I have one comment.
    • the page number format is inconsistent in the Citations. For instance you have in # 25 "pp. 119-120", but in # 20 you have "pp. 110-11" (where you mean 110-111). These should be consistent, and to be honest, I think it would be best if you use the full number. The example in # 11 just doesn't look right IMO: "pp. 100-05". AustralianRupert (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: my concern has been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comments above have been dealt with. The Land (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Promoted. EyeSerenetalk 07:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USS Indiana (BB-1)[edit]

Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has just passed GA nomination and this is the next step on it's way to FA status. It is the first ship article I have done and I have tried to incorporate feedback from the still ongoing A class review of Indiana class battleship as much as possible. My goal is to make the Indiana class into a featured topic eventually, so feedback from this review will also be used for her two sister ships. Yoenit (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - this article is lacking mention of the actual construction in prose, and the relevant dates are only listed in the infobox. The prose itself jumps from drawing-board to commissioning. I would expect that there would at least be a paragraph like I have done in USS Texas (BB-35). -MBK004 03:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I will get to work on it later today Yoenit (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a a few lines on the place of construction, laying down of the keel and launching, is this enough to address your concern about the lack of construction information and show the connection with WP:pennsylvania? Yoenit (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there anything on construction or commissioning in The New York Times' archive search? (use the 'advanced' searching to set specific dates) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is, but I am unsure if it should be included. From MBK's lack of response I gather the section still needs more expansion, so see below for the things covered in the NYT. Bolded text is going to be included in the next rewrite somewhere the next few days.
          • During actual construction there is only a single useful mention and that just says Harvey armor is being ordered. After constructing was completed in April/May 1894 there is some more info: Some testing of the armorplates (which are better covered in Reilly & Scheina, but not specific to Indiana), a minor shitstorm about the ship being docked in Canada for cleaning and some excitement about her trial trip in October. There are also loads of articles about her being commissioned, but they all boil to down to Indiana will be/is/was commissioned with Captain X in command, though I might use the commissioning location from that. Most interesting is actually a mention in 1907 that the shipyard lost a case for the supreme court, where they claimed money because the government was responsible for delaying Indiana's construction for two years. Yoenit (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm, it seems I should learn to search properly. I have found several more NYT articles now, covering the launching, reasons for the delay and preliminary trial trip. The section has been significantly expanded and now has references to six NYT articles. Further expansion is possible, but I am afraid of diving into trivia and WP:undue. Please comment. Yoenit (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Since this is an article about Indiana I don't see the point in mentioning the other ships of the class. Right now the construction reads like how a class article would be written. Brad (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My lack of response did not indicate that I thought the section needed any other action, my sister is graduating from school and I've been understandably busy and unable to devote more than an hour or two a night to wikipedia, for the next day or so. Accordingly I've struck my oppose since the information I asked for was added, but I do have to agree with Brad above that the section should only mention Indiana and that the section does read more like how the class article should be than an article on an individual ship. Please see USS Connecticut (BB-18) for how an article on a US pre-dreadnought which should be laid out (assuming the ship was a member of a class and not unique). You've placed too much emphasis on the technical/design in the section than what is appropriate for this article as opposed to the class article. After I comprehensively review this article in a few days, this may be a major sticking point in my eventual !vote... -MBK004 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would probably be because the information in that section is mostly literally from the Indiana class battleship article, converting it to just talk about the Indiana is no problem, nor is removing the technical/design stuff (if I compare the article to the connecticut that would just mean deletion of the last three paragraphs of the design and construction section). I will probably get around to it somewhere this weekend. Yoenit (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my issues have been resolved and I've also fixed a ship name issue in the post-Spanish American war since USS Texas (1892) was renamed San Marcos in 1911 to free that name for USS Texas (BB-35). -MBK004 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • There are no dab links, the external links all check out, all images have alt text and the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required);
    • Citation style is inconsistent in one place - footnote # 8 (Chesneau et al) appears to be a long citation while in other footnotes you have (correctly) used a variation of the short footnote style (with the full citation in the Bibliography);
    • The first sentence in the 'Early career' section should be reworked ("Indiana was commissioned on 20 November 1895 under the command of Captain Robley D. Evans, nicknamed "Fighting Bob Evans") as it seems choppy;
    • I would like to see the article copy edited in some places as there are a few other examples of similar prose;
      • Once I again it seems like Dank is already doing just that. Yoenit (talk)
    • Lastly, would it be possible to code the citation templates so they are linear with no spaces between each cell, rather than vertical? Its a minor nitpick I know but it makes editing the article quite difficult.

For example:

{{Cite book
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title =
| publisher =
| date =
| location =
| pages =
| url =
| doi =
| id =
| isbn = }}

Becomes:

{{Cite book|last=|first=|authorlink=|coauthors=|title=|publisher=|date=|location=|pages=|url=|doi=|id=isbn=}} Anotherclown (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers for that, actually there is also a large number of these templates used through out the body of the article and they were primarily the ones I was referring to. If these could also receive similar treatment that would be fantastic. Anotherclown (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Anyone feel like tackling the copyediting? I got the first 3 paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nevermind, I got it, per the usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am gonna glance it over right now, but I don't really count. Many thanks Dank, have I told you you are awesome? Yoenit (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • One sentence in the lead seemed awkward now so I tried to fix it, no other comments on your copyediting. Yoenit (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Top effort fellas, it reads quite well now. All my concerns have been satisfied so striking all and moving to support. Overall, IMO this article is a well written piece about a very interesting topic. Anotherclown (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, for your review, your copy-editing, your support and your compliment Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Overall looks fine, just a couple of nitpicks from me:
    • Citation # 4 (Bryan BC) seems a bit strange, there is a full stop after 2010 and then also a comma and a clause which ends without a full stop. Can you please check the punctuation with this citation? Perhaps it makes sense to put the comment about "rounded average calculated from the experimental data in this paper, with BB-1 and BB-2 lumped together" in a Footnote rather than a citation?
    • the title in Citation # 8 (Conways) needs to be capitalised as it is in the References, i.e. "Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1860–1905" as opposed to "Conway's all the worlds fighting ships, 1860–1905". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I see no need to explain freeboard as well as linking to it, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of battleships of Austria-Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk), White Shadows talk


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because White Shadows and I think it's ready. He has two others open, but I think he is about to close them. Buggie111 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, I spent literally hours writeing this thing and Parsec has done some minor fixes to the images and grammar. Everything should be in order. As for my other two noms, I've withdrawn them so this is the only one that I'll be working on for now.--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I see a lot of repetition of facts given in the tables, like armament, size, etc.; the text should cover stuff that's not presented in the tables.
  • I'd like to see launch dates added to the tables.
  • Why hasn't Sokol been consulted?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not opposeing right away :) ONce Parsec get's a copy of Sokol, I'll ask him to add info into the article from it. As for the repitition, do you want me to remove the stuff in the text that is covered in the tables? The last thing, the launch dates, I'll add those in once I get home today. (I may have to experiment trying to get the table to enlarge without screwing it up) Thanks.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in the launch dates and made some typo corrections as well as fix a few false dates in the Erzherzog Karl section. I've also tried to find anything about these ships in Sokol's book from the limited view that I get from google books but could'nt find anything. As for the repetition, should I just remove identical info? What do you want me to do with this? Thanks.--White Shadows you're breaking up 18:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should remove redundant info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--White Shadows stood on the edge 21:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments:
    • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
    • images seem appropriately licenced;
    • alt text could be added to the images (just a suggestion, though, as it is no longer a requirement);
    • Citation # 16 needs publisher information if you can get it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I wold like to see alt text used for the images, but I will not oppose for this. I cursory glance suggests that the article is in good working order, but seeing as how I am falling asleep writing just this little blurb I think I'll wait until after I've had some sleep to fully review the article and suggest other more important points for fixing (assuming that I actually find some). TomStar81 (Talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • There are no dabs, external links check out, and the citation checker tool reveals no errors (no action required);
    • You might consider adding alt text to the photos, although this is not an A class requirement;
    • I'm not an expert on lists, but shouldn't this article still be categorised (i.e. [[Category:List of Battleships]]? etc);
    • The first paragraph of the lead seems overly long, and could possibly be split;
    • You mention World War I twice in the first sentence of the last paragraph in the lead, should be reworded;
    • In the Habsburg class section, your sentences are a little out of whack chronologically speaking, i.e. you mention the modernization of 2 ships in 1911 (last sentence 1st para), before you mention the lead ship of the class being laid down in 1900 (1st sentence, 2nd para).;
    • The first two sentences of the Radetzky class seem a little repetitive, and could probably be worked into one ("The Radetzky-class battleships were the third group of pre-dreadnought battleships to be constructed by Austria-Hungary.[8] The Radetzky-class was the last class of pre-dreadnoughts that were built by the Austro-Hungarian Navy.)
    • The 2nd para in the Tegetthoff class section seems too long, and could probably be split;

Anyway thats it for me now as I have to head off to work, more to follow. Good work so far. Anotherclown (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added in alt text to all images.--White Shadows stood on the edge 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good work (personally I hate adding alt text to my articles as its so tedious). Striking all issues as satisfied and moving to support. IMO this is an interesting list, that is attractively laid out, well written and succinct, while at the same time comprehensive. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your support. I plan on takeing this to FLC once this ACR is finnished. I also approve of the changes that you made as well. Thanks :)--White Shadows stood on the edge 00:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 08:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Princess Royal (1911)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the five criteria and I'd like to take it to FAC in the not too-distant future. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Could someone check for non-British spellings and expressions, please? - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've got a judgment call to make on the first sentence:
HMS Princess Royal was a British battlecruiser built before World War I, the second ship of the Lion class, which were nicknamed the "Splendid Cats".
  • My change was "the Lion class" instead of "her class". "Her class" is common in the first sentence of ships articles, and that has always felt like a reasonable trade-off to me: it's a little bit of an WP:EGG problem, that is, the link is not precisely what it says it is, but OTOH, one of the most important jobs in the first paragraph is not to distract the reader with details so that they can get the main facts quickly. When you're mainly talking about the ship, you don't want to focus on the class. But this article starts focusing on the class right away. I didn't notice a problem when I first read it because I'm so used to "her class" in the first sentence, but when I got to the first sentence past the introduction that talks about the Lion class and wondered what the Lion class was, I felt that we needed something more than we had. Thoughts? This could affect a lot of ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay ... I know we've had this conversation before, and I understand that some of you guys are really happy with the sclass template, and I would have no problem with it at all ... if editors always got the hyphens right. The problem is that they're often wrong (I think everyone's agreed that we don't want a hyphen when "class" is a noun), and because the template shows you an incomprehensible "{{sclass|Moltke|battlecruiser|0}}" in the edit window, proofreaders keep missing the fact that it needs to be fixed. If what you saw in the edit window was "... the first British battlecruisers, the [[Invincible class battlecruiser|''Invincible''-class]].", then the problem would be obvious. Thoughts? These are getting a little tedious; sometimes I have to fix the template 3 times as different editors have different opinions and keep changing the last digit in the template as they reword, getting it wrong every time. There's a general principle here ... you can usually figure out what a Wikipedia article is saying by looking at the edit window, and this is the reason for that ... people can't fix what they can't see. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 'preview' can help with that, which lets you see the problem and fix it. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to preview them myself to see if I've remembered the right digit or not.
  • I may have to start investing in style guides followed by major publishers in other countries ... oh joy. "afterwards" isn't supposed to have an s per AP Stylebook ... anyone want to educate me on matters of British style? - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both spellings are valid according to my dictionary. I wouldn't sweat this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Indefatigables": User:Yoenit dealt with the same issue in the current ACR WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Indiana_class_battleship, and after reading his sources, came to the conclusion that they didn't say "The Indianas" very often and removed it. I'm happy either way, in theory ... it does get tedious saying "the X class, the X class, the X class"; also, if the sources and the crew tended to say this a lot, we're doing our readers a service to mention the terminology. I think the "s" should be italicized, btw, but this is a technical point that I'm not going to argue. All I ask is that you don't assume the reader knows that this means "the Indefatigable-class ships", because it's not as obvious to them as it is to us ... tell them what it means the first time you use it (I made the edit). - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find a suitable link for deep load ... I think I looked at this issue before and can't remember what I did. It's not in the glossary, on Wiktionary, in an article title, or in Displacement (ship). Anyone have a link? - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find an exact definition, but I've added one to the displacement article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I created a redirect so that we can link deep load now. It probably needs linking at first occurrence in any article. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I learned that the Polperro Mile was a Cornish location for speed trials, I figured it was surely notable. But there are only 6 English-language ghits for it (9 in all), and they concern only 2 ships, this one and the HMS Nelson. So I'm wondering if the location deserves a mention ... if it does, we'll need a link, either to Polperro or Polpero Mile. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't add that bit, so I'm not invested. It's a famous location though if you're into British steam warship history and worth an article, or at least part of one that discusses the effects of depth on maximum speed. Nothing that I'm particularly prepared to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll trust you, not everything important has Google links ... I'll change it to "off the coast of Polperro" and link unless we can find something more specific to link to. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a link for Mark II mount (or Mk II or Mk 2). - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? The most important think about the mount, its maximum elevation, is already given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. In that case, we need a good link for mount (the ones we have are crap), and a subtle change in the wording will convey to the reader that that's the important thing about this kind of mount, I'll make the change. Same for Mark Ic. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. Best I can find at the moment is weapon mount, possibly linking to a section. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) *****I don't see the need for any sort of link at all. I've given mount types in virtually everything I've written thus far and nobody's ever complained or asked a question. So why now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If forced to guess, I'd say it's because I'm trying to act like a copyeditor, which means I try to expand the audience that could digest this article ... and even if they do get the gist of what you're saying, would their understanding be improved with a link? For instance, the link I added for breech-loading might add something to their understanding, especially the nice image. It would be nice if we had a link that gave us images of several standard mount types to get the point across ... but I'm not going to fail the article without it, especially since I suck at finding images, I just think it would help. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I could add a picture showing the AA gun even though it's from HMAS Australia that would at least give the sense of what the gun, and its mount, looks like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • So far the article has few images ... that sounds like a good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this gun and one from HMS Lion": I inserted the HMS (or rather, I looked up the secret code from the template that inserts HMS); it was a slight preference because of the possibility of confusion with the Lions. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Battle of Jutland revealed her vulnerability to plunging shellfire": are we talking about the Princess Royal here? I'm confused because the next two paragraphs talk about the HMS Lion ... and is it customary to discuss what happened to sister ships in an article about just the one ship? Did the wartime modifications to Lion have some impact on Princess Royal? - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And well you should be confused. Excessive copy-pasting, I'm afraid. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • During what period was Walter Cowan in command? I think you're right to insert it in the narrative, given the friction that "lists of captains" tends to generate, and I'm not sure where else we can insert it, but we have to find some way to pare down that sentence. Also, "leading ships" in that sentence raises some questions for me ... leading which other ships, and did those ships participate? That sentence needs to lose something, and that's one thing we might be able to drop. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were leading the other two battlecruisers under Beatty's command, New Zealand and Indomitable. See the diagram immediately left. I'm not sure that we need to break up the second sentence as the natural breaking point at the 'and' would read very choppy. OTOH Cowan isn't honestly important here and that clause could be dropped to shorten the sentence.
      • Tossed the captain overboard. That works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any objection if I convert am to a.m.? I believe both are common in the British publishing industry, but AP recommends a.m. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. Actually I think it's required by MOS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't gotten an answer at WT:MOSNUM on whether "7:20 a.m. on the 24th ... By 7:35 the ..." is okay, that is, whether you have to repeat the "a.m." every time, as MOS seems to imply. I'll leave this alone for now. I don't think it would be awful with all those "a.m."s, it just wouldn't be my preference. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once is enough, IMO. I have no intention of presuming that the reader is stupid enough not to be able to discern the time of day in a close sequence of events once he's given it. I do mention it once it changes from one to the other.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't tell whether MOS allows it or not, but if someone complains, we'll just change MOS. Everyone does it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I start talking about British style, all I'm going to accomplish is to show I don't know anything about British style, but see for instance "quotation marks" in the Times Online style guide and the Guardian's style guide. MOS (usually) requires double quotes. I'll make the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the edits, Graeme. Sturm, one change is that there's only one "Indefatigables" left; if you want to keep one or more of these, then please add at the first occurrence, "or Indefatigable-class ships" or "that is, the Indefatigable-class ships". Also I'm not sure how best to link this: "Two 21-inch (530 mm) submerged torpedo tubes were fitted on the beam; fourteen torpedoes were carried." Would it make sense to use the link and extra description that Graeme added, but move those to where "torpedoes" is now? - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Made the edit about the torpedoes ... is it reasonable to assume that 21-inch torpedo tubes carried 21-inch torpedoes? - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need more experience before I'm comfortable making a call, but Graeme's response at WT:SHIP#(Not) converting units in the name of a gun and the lack of other responses suggests that ships editors aren't all aboard with "He turned in pursuit and reduced her to a flaming hulk" and similar language. I'll keep an eye on this issue. Also, the MOS edit that I mention in that thread probably accomplished something, but it's too early to figure out what exactly ... so in "... 271 13.5-inch shells during the battle, a hit rate of only 0.7%. She also fired two 13.5-inch shrapnel shells ...", do we have to convert? Does the previous link to a particular 13.5-inch gun mean that we can expect the reader to click on the prior link if they want to know the conversion in millimeters/metres? I don't know yet, I'll keep an eye on this too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I've got a specific proposal for this article; let's see how it goes. The first paragraph after the intro says "The Lion-class ships exchanged the 12-inch (305 mm) guns of the older ships for the same number of 13.5-inch (343 mm) guns ...". I can easily support the decision not to go into great detail on the guns here; that can wait for the armament section. But some readers will want to know "which guns?" the first time you bring them up, and the standard way to deal with a situation where some readers want more and some want less is with a link, so they can choose their own path. But we can't do 12-inch guns (linking to the specific guns) per WP:EGG, that is, because we want the reader to trust that links mean what they say and say what they mean (see WYSIWYG for the interface design principle). OTOH, there's nothing wrong with shortening the name to 12-inch Mark X guns (I prefer "Mark" to "Mk" but there are arguments both ways). And once we've linked the guns, anyone who wants to know what that is in metric can just click on the link. We would need to link it one more time, in the armament section where the full name is used, but per my change to MOS and MOSNUM, my guess is we can get by with no conversions to metric for "12-inch" in the text as long as we have those two links, plus the conversions to metric in the infobox ... it's worth a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do think that a conversion is necessary if the measurement is used outside of a weapon name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine with me, and it will make less work converting other articles to the new system. - Dank (push to talk) 22:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what to do about the fact that "The Lion class was" can sometimes sound horrible to Brits, and "The Lion class were" can sometimes sound horrible to Americans. My instinct is to avoid the issue and reword where possible. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I think the rewording worked here; it's not a problem in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though File:Jutland1916.jpg is one click away at Battle of Jutland, it was much easier to follow the text with that image in hand; any chance of using all or part of that image over here? - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea, I've added it at 600px to be fully legible, but I'm not sure if it dominates the article too much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was confirmed when the destroyer Landrail ...": I don't understand whether it's the presence of the U-boat that was confirmed or the origin of that torpedo that's being confirmed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Landrail is noted as spotting a periscope it seems pretty obvious that the presence of a U-boat was confirmed, not of a torpedo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, then that's what we need to say, I'll make the change. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given that I'm relatively new at A-class review, and per the usual disclaimer, support for a thorough ship article that's fun to read. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
    • alt text could be added to the images per WP:ALT (this is just a suggestion and I don't believe it is an A class requirement anymore);
    • images seem appropriately licenced to me (no action required);
    • why are Refs # 44, 45 and 48 in long form, while all the others are short citations?
      • Fixed
    • in the References section, Ref # 44 needs an endash for the date range "1904-1919";
      • Somebody already fixed that.
        • I'm arguing the point at WT:FAC; I'd prefer we hyphenate for book titles, but that would mean a change to a lot of FACs. If I win, I'll let you guys know. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • some of the ISBNs in the Bibliography have hyphens but others don't. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my comments have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • There's a citation needed in the Dogger Bank section.
      • Done
    • Images all look good.
    • On that note, is there any possibility of finding more images of the ship?
      • I've exhausted Commons as the only other picture is kinda lame as it in Kronstadt before the war.
        • I was thinking of trawling through google books to see what's there. I've found only this one so far, which is pretty tiny and useless. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraphs seem a little "wall-of-text"-ish, but maybe it's just because I'm looking at the article on a different computer.
      • I've added a couple of pictures of her opponents to try and break up the text more.
        • The photo of Moltke has to go, it doesn't have a source. You might replace it with this photo of Derfflinger firing a broadside (considering it was this ship that engaged Princess Royal during the run to the south). Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • [Previous comment was Sturm's] Could be my doing ... do you want shorter paragraphs, more topic sentences, or less "this happened, then this happened"? - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there's a bit too much technical stuff for the individual ship article. I can see having this much detail for Queen Mary, which differed from her half-sisters, but isn't this ship essentially the same as Lion? I won't oppose over this, because this is just my style of article construction, and I think we've talked about this before, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
      • I trimmed one design paragraph down to match the one in Lion, but the rest is a pretty close match for Lion. The only real technical details are in the AA armament because they aren't in the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks pretty good, once the cn tag is fixed I'll support it for A-class. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more thing: can we ditch the link to battleships-cruisers.co.uk? I don't like the idea of linking to websites that are in all likelihood committing copyfraud. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns have been addressed, so I'm moving to support. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Posen[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Yet another German battleship, this one was one of the first dreadnoughts. This article passed GA last week, and I feel that it is pretty comprehensive. I appreciate any and all comments directed at improving the article, towards an eventual run at FAC (that means hack and slash all you want, Dank). Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: just a quick look at the moment (sorry, its late here):
    • no dab links, no ext links to play up (no action required);
    • images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • the infobox image could have alt text added to it given that the other photo has it;
    • in the Citations subsection, citation # 6 has "Gardiner and Gray" while citation # 37 has "Gardiner & Gray" (these should be consistent);
    • some of the ISBNs have hyphens while others don't. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for checking the technical/refs stuff. I added alt text and fixed the two issues you pointed out with the references. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a couple comments
    • What happened to the cool note you used to use to tell readers what "SMS" means?
    • A couple grammar issues, but Dank's probable copyedit will take care of those. If not, I'll go through and attempt a copyedit myself. The content looks good to me. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it was the Helgoland ACR where Dank came up with the current solution. And Dank is going to be doing a copy-edit sometime soon. Thanks for making the fixes you did. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - another phenomenal German dreadnought article. Cam (Chat) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 10:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've cleaned it up and expanded the lead and I believe that it meets the requirements. This will be going to FAC afterwards so please point out any problems with prose, etc. Help with the lead would also be appreciated and I'm not sure that the list of captains is worth retaining; your thoughts on the issue would be appreciated. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with external links. One dab link needs to be located and if at all possible removed. None of your images have alt text, which is not required due to a change in the guidelines, however I would feel better about having them in the article.
    • I took a crack at the lead, let me know what you think.
    • More to follow...TomStar81 (Talk) 21:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we merge the design and general characteristics sections? The latter seems to me to be too short to be its own section.
    • In the armament section you have the line "The Americans did much the same with the provision of four twin 8-inch (203 mm) gun turrets on their Lexington-class carriers.", while I understand why it was include I
Yes think it would do better as a footnote or else be removed altogether; it seems to me that its inclusion in the text is distracting the flow of information for Kaga specifically.
      • Yeah, a foot note would be better.
    • Can we expand on the armor section at all? Its very very short and in its current form would problem do better either as a footnote somewhere or linked to the class article since details of this type are usually addressed on the class articles.
      • Maybe it can be expanded. However, from what I remember, she had a very simple armor system that had been radically reduced from her BB design, so it has to be covered here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge the Early History and Reconstruction sections, the former can not survive as its own section with only a line or two and the latter is in a position to absorb that information to explain the rebuild. Lemme see what I can do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history before WWII section is IMO too short to stand alone as a section, I would recommend extending it some or merging it with another section.
      • That's a problem because there's very little substantial information on her activities before WWII available with which to expand it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend making the Battle of Midway header a secondary header to the World War II header so as to make the two sections flow better, after all the Battle of Midway was a part of the Second World War.
      • Agreed
    • Why do we need parenthesis around the plane names (ie "Vals", "Zeros", etc)? Wouldn't it make more since to drop the parenthesis and simply state the names as they are? If I recall correctly this has been the approach in other battle articles, and its seems to work just find so far. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somebody else did the quotation marks, presumably because they're codenames, and I didn't feel like fighting them, but I'd just as soon get rid of them as they're a distraction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support After taking another read through I think that a general copyedit would do the article good, as there are some parts that read awkwardly and could do with a third party to straiten out. Otherwise, it looks good to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • in the lead, this sentence possibly needs to be clarified: "The following month her aircraft bombed Darwin, Australia and she was forced to return to Japan for repairs after hitting a rock so she did not participate in the Indian Ocean raid." Did Kaga hit the rock while participating in the bombing of Darwin? If so I'd suggest re-wording "and" (and she was forced) to "after which..."
      • Fixed
    • the first paragraph in the Design and description section doesn't have a citation;
      • Done
    • in the Flight deck arrangements section, consider rewording this: "The utility of her middle flight deck had to be questionable..." ("had to be questionable", or "was questionable")?
      • Done
    • In regards to the above clause, I feel as it seems like analysis it should have a citation directly following the statement, even if it is just a duplication of the citation at the end of the paragraph;
      • Done
    • you have a mixture of terms regarding Second World War/World War Two. In the Flight deck arrangements section you use "Second World War", but later use the term "World War Two";
      • Fixed
    • could a note be placed next to "second class reserve status" in the Early service section explaining what it means. From what I've read of the IJA there were "first reserves" and "second reserves" which relate to training obligation, I think?
      • Deleted because I'm not sure what the differences actually were.
    • in the Service in World War Two section, I think in the first sentence "she" should be replaced with "Kaga" to be specific about the subject of the paragraph;
      • Agreed
    • dashes should be consistent with WP:DASH (page ranges in Footnotes for instance, and hyphens in Commanding officers;
      • The sentence before the WP:DASH section says: "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; the rules and examples presented above illustrate the broad principles that inform current usage." One of those subtleties is that hyphens are often fine in place of dashes in smaller fonts, particularly in tabular data. I've seen many articles get through FAC and ACR with no one complaining about the hyphens in the footnotes. This isn't a big deal, but to make it easier for the writers and reviewers, it might not be a bad idea to add something to WP:MOSSHIP about this. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the MOS specifies that n dashes are to be used for page ranges and dates. Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the References section should be sorted in alphabetical order by author's surname;
      • Done
    • in the Footnotes sometimes you have Author, Title, page # (e.g. Campbell), but then Author and page. Is there a reason for this?
      • Somebody else's citation; now cleaned up.
    • for numbers greater than nine, sometimes you use numerals (e.g. 27 Kates) but then at other times you use words (e.g. "fourteen Devastators"). In the Service in World War Two section, when discussing the Pearl Harbor attack you sometimes use numerals for values less than nine, e.g. "9 Mitsubishi A6M...". The MOS generally prefers words for those values less than 9 and numerals for 10 and above;
      • Done
    • the final sentence of the Battle of Midway section probably needs more information. In the lead you state that debris was found, but the main wreckage has not been located, however, this is not mentioned later on in the Battle of Midway section;
      • Mildly expanded.
    • in the Commanding officers section there are a couple of * but it doesn't seem to state what these mean (e.g. next to December, Rear Admiral and RADM);
    • is there are source for the claim in Note 1? — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • sourced.
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the general consensus forming at Wikipedia_talk:SHIPS#Commanding_Officers is that listing the commanding officers is not acceptable. I cannot support an article with a list of COs in it. A stand-alone list is preferable in my view if the desire is to maintain the information. -MBK004 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I mentioned it. Nuked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahh, I didn't see that at the beginning. I've done a bit of copyediting, but am not ready to support just yet. -MBK004 02:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Objections resolved. Cla68 (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Mild oppose. The Allied code names for Japanese aircraft, such as "Val" and "Kate" should be avoided. The Japanese didn't use those terms, so they are POV. The formal aircraft designations should be used. Also, there are a couple of other sources that should be used for this article. I'll get to those shortly. Cla68 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...I don't comprehend how they're POV - they're (a) historical fact, and (b) are the terms the majority of Wikipedians will know these aircraft as. They're no more POV than the NATO reporting names assigned to Soviet aircraft. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed14:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, do you have sources that label "Kate" a derogatory or biased term, and do these sources have weight and currency? If not, then it would be better to go with the English-language sources we've got; I'm not the expert, but the online sources I'm looking at all use "Kate". Even if the term is considered inappropriate for some reason by some sources, it might be better to use the widely-used term and mention the controversy, rather than hiding the widely-used term. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since about 1990, many, if not most of the Pacific War histories I've read, including most that I used when building the Guadalcanal campaign articles, stopped using those names for Japanese aircraft. Lundstrom's books, in particular, never use those names, instead calling them Aichi kanbaku, Nakajima kanko, Mitsubishi Rikko, or whatever. One problem with using "Kate", "Val", "Betty" and so on is that many, if not most, of those names didn't start being used by the Allies until late 1942 or 1943. So, at the time that Kaga was sunk in the Battle of Midway, the Allies didn't refer to the Kaga's aircraft as "Vals" and "Kates." In fact, from what I've seen in official reports of the Battle of Midway and Coral Sea, the American officers simply referred to the Japanese aircraft as "Type 97", "Type 99", "Aichi dive bombers" "Nakajima torpedo bombers" or simply "enemy dive bombers" and "enemy torpedo bombers" all of which are actually proper terms for these aircraft. See here, here, here, here, and here. "Zero" is ok to use for the A6M because the Japanese called that aircraft by almost the same name, "Type Zero." Cla68 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I completely misunderstood your point. Nice research. - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sources go, there are several more listed here that could have been used for this article. One in particular I wanted to point out is this one:
  • Peattie, Mark R. (1999). Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power 1909-1941. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-664-X.
This book is the book in English on the IJN's aviation arm. I would hope that any article on an IJN aircraft carrier would reference this book. Now, I know that it may be unrealistic to expect all these sources to be used to get an article to A Class level. I would expect, however, that this book at least be used before the article is nominated for Featured consideration. If all the other concerns on this page, including mine about the use of "Val" and "Kate" are addressed, I'll withdraw my sourcing concern until after this article is promoted to A Class. Cla68 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the US Navy link to the Midway OB lists the aircraft by both Japanese designation and US codename I believe that your issue with the names is inappropriate. The first several examples in the article use both and then use the codename. What makes you think that general readers only read the recent scholarship? I'd bet that Walter Lord's book on Midway is read more often than is Shattered Sword which is a far superior account of the battle. I don't bargain in exchange for a support, or even a withdrawal of an oppose. Persuade me that you are correct and I'll change the article for the better, but if not, then not. So far so I'm not persuaded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about getting the Peattie book on ILL, but decided not to bother since the focus is on the ship, not her air group. Perhaps that was a mistake, but I'm not sure how useful it would be in terms of the ship's history. My copy of Jentshura is in storage, but IIRC it doesn't have much more than Conway's and I'm not fond of using Osprey books unless there's no other choice. I've read Kaigun and Dull's book, but found nothing of use therein.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sunburst goes into great detail on the design, purpose, and peacetime operations of the IJN's carriers, not just the airgroups. If I can find the time, I'll add some information to the artice from Sunburst and I think you'll see what I mean. If you noticed, Sunburst was a major source used by Parshall and Tully in Shattered Sword. My view on using the Allied code names stand. Notice that in the Battle of the Coral Sea article it never, except perhaps in the footnotes, uses the Allied code names for the Japanese aircraft. That article has received between 20,000 and 50,000 hits per month and in the year since it made FA no one has complained about the non-use of the Allied code names for the Japanese aircraft. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just ordered Sunburst from ILL, hopefully it will get here in a week or two. I think that the codenames and the formal designations are equally good, you have a bias towards one; I could care less, but I'm not going to spend the time to change perfectly valid terminology for what are essentially stylistic reasons. Feel free to do so yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just got Sunburst and it was a bit of a disappointment. Not much mention of Kaga or her air group other than a brief reference to the first aerial victory claim over Shanghai in '32; I'd been hoping for a bit details more on her involvement in China.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's occasionally suggested by copyeditors that one word is tighter and better than two; it would be nice if it were always that easy, but it's not, and besides, a copyeditor doesn't do the writer or the reader any service by substituting their "voice" for the writer's. But take this, for example: "... but her initial configuration was not satisfactory. To address the issues with her initial rebuild, especially in regard to her three flight decks, slow speed and exhaust arrangements, she was comprehensively rebuilt during the mid-1930s. This second rebuild concluded in 1935 and adequately addressed the problems from the initial conversion." I think that can be shortened (also adding some useful detail from the article text) to: "She was rebuilt again from 1933 to 1935, increasing her top speed, improving her exhaust systems, and adapting her flight decks to more modern, heavier aircraft." We all spend a lot of time reading older sources, and even 20 years ago in the US, it was much more common to see a slow-paced prose style, but everything has changed, driven by shrinking space devoted to text, faster-paced dialogue on television, and the increasing ability and desire to read quickly. It's unfashionable to add clauses that are more or less implied by the text you've already got. I'll do more tightening in the morning, and as always, you're welcome to revert anything I do. - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm torn here; I think I'm going to rewrite "During her career, Kaga's aircraft supported ...". I personally think it's fine, actually, I read "during her career" as a shorter and better way to say "now I'm going to summarize her career" ... but I think in general it's safer at FAC to rewrite phrases so that it's harder for people to delete them as "redundant". - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some work is needed to restore the tarnished reputation of copyeditors because it's generally done wrong around here ... and I think that's all I'll say about that at the moment. Copyediting doesn't work unless the copyeditor has no ego invested and no stake in the outcome, only a desire (for whatever reason) to show that they're a competent copyeditor. Generally, that means the copyeditor should just make the changes they want to make, without drawing attention to themselves or faulting the writer, and keep doing it for the writers who like the end product and stop for the writers who don't. But copyediting also requires periodic transparency to solicit feedback, and Sturmvogel has agreed to let me do that with this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Great Kate Debate, I don't have much to offer other than the general principle, and policy discussions at WT:AT have more or less reflected professional standards. When a name for somebody or something is consistently used in sources of that time, you'll never get people who grew up during that time or who read those sources to believe that the name isn't appropriate; on the other hand, communities of scholars tend to get very fixed ideas about what is and isn't appropriate, and people outside those communities rarely succeed in getting them to change their minds. The only way to answer questions like these is to go with the terms that are used and likely to be used by whatever your readership is reading. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I delinked Australia per WP:LINK. If readers want to find out about Australia, they can get there by clicking on bombed Darwin, Australia. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jardiel Poncela said, "When something can be read without effort, great effort has gone into its writing", and that's what drives many copyediting decisions. So for example, I changed: "... and she was forced to return to Japan for repairs after hitting a rock so she did not participate in the Indian Ocean raid." to: "She missed the Indian Ocean raid in April after hitting a rock and returning to Japan for repairs." (I'm not faulting your decision, there were trade-offs here.) It helps the reader if they know sooner rather than later what the point of the sentence is; hitting a rock isn't very interesting, but missing a major naval engagement is. Also, when you've got a chronology going and you put two items in the same sentence without mentioning the date of the second, the reader will make a vague assumption that the second was at roughly the same time, and this one wasn't, so I added the month. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and note I used "returning to Japan" rather than "being forced to return to Japan ..."; there are several reasons, but the main one is that we can make reasonable assumptions about the reader's ability to make sense of the narrative. I make a fair number of changes like this one, removing assumptions about what people "had to do" and "wanted to do" because it reflects my understanding of trends in professional publishing, and so far, I've never gotten reverted. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "debris identified as belonging to Kaga" -> "debris from Kaga": if what's interesting is the process (for instance, if there's some doubt about whether the identification is accurate), then "debris identified as belonging to Kaga" works fine, if you follow it immediately with what the sources say casting doubt on the identification, for instance. If you believe the source you're using, that the debris really was from Kaga, and the identification process isn't a story in itself, then "debris from Kaga" is better. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • however, therefore: you're using these and other words to alert the reader that you're transitioning to a new topic, and in general I approve, but I want to mention that there's a difficulty here. The best transitions are either words that have no meaning in that context ("and" is often a safe choice), or words that precisely define the transition. I suspect "however" and "therefore" are on the road to losing most of their previous meanings one of these days, but I still see people being careful and sparing with them in professional writing, using "therefore" to mean something like "it logically or naturally follows or followed" and "however" to mean almost (but not quite) the same thing as "but". - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to link "long tons", "knots" and "nautical miles" at the first occurrence in both the infobox and the text (since some readers read one but not the other); does anyone have objections? Apart from linking, I prefer not to get into questions of what and how to convert because my thoughts are more in line with professional publishing (that conversions look awkward in main text) and less in line with WP:MOSNUM. I notice an unconverted "33,000 tons" in the text that you might or might not want to convert. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree on the link; I'm just not consistent. And 33,000 tons is now converted.
  • I'm fine with "Tosa-class battleship", "Tosa class ships", and with having both in the same article, and for me, this is a very small (but annoying) issue. You might be asked at FAC to be consistent one way or the other with the hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the Sovetsky Soyuz article it should almost always be hyphenated. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice you reverted me on adding a period to a caption, "per MOS". MOS says: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (noun phrases, sentence fragments) that should not end with a period. If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period." If we need to reword that to make it clearer, let me know. "Kaga as completed; all three flight decks are visible forward" is not a nominal group, so it needs a period (or rewording, for instance: "Kaga as completed, with all three flight decks visible forward"). - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, a three-fer: "Kaga was armed with ten 20-centimeter (7.9 in)/50 3rd Year Type guns; one twin-gun Model B turret on each side of the middle flight deck and six in Model A1 casemates aft."
    • When I hit the semicolon, I thought: is this because there's a list where the elements of the list contain commas, so you have to separate the elements with semicolons? I had to get to the end of the sentence and add things up to verify that the second half of the sentence contained more information on those guns rather than additional guns, so I traded in the semicolon for a colon here.
    • I'm going to need help knowing what to do with "Model A1". On the one hand, WP:MOSTM and AP Stylebook are both very skeptical of forcing our typeface to match manufacturers' conventions, because if you gave them the chance, manufacturers would insist that their product always be displayed accompanied by red blinking lights and loud car horns. We have to draw the line somewhere, and WP:MOSTM and AP Stylebook draw the line in approximately the same place: we don't budge an inch. OTOH, material that is mostly aimed at a technical audience tends to follow whatever the technical conventions are; a math article that used an "S" to represent "integral" would just look silly. So: is A1 a standard nomenclature intended for a technical audience? Would "A-1" look silly? I'm leaning towards MOSTM on this one but it's not my call.
    • Readers get annoyed if they can't even match a picture or a concept to the words you're using. A link would be nice, but I would object if a FAC reviewer required it, for "ten 20-centimeter (7.9 in)/50 3rd Year Type guns", because you don't have to have any idea what a "3rd Year Type" gun is to picture a 20-cm 50-caliber gun. But "Model A1 casemate", I'm not so sure about; casemates come in all shapes and sizes, and I really have no way of knowing what this thing is or how it functions, without at least a hint, a little more description, or a link. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no information on Japanese casemates, unlike turrets, and have deleted their type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Chicago and per discussions at WT:MOS (I can dig them up if you want), it's "from X to Y" and "between X and Y", not "from X–Y" and "between X–Y". (I made the change.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right and I should spell out the numbers as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the rear of each side of the flight deck": which flight deck? - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, I can tell from one of the images.[reply]
  • Conway (ATWFS, p. 180) says the rebuilding was "from 1934 to 1935", but I used 1933 in the lead earlier based on your information; your information seems more specific, do you want to keep that? - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conway also says "... abandoned, she sank when the aviation fuel tanks exploded." Is he 0 for 2 here? - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted ostensibly; that implies falsehood. The reason given was why the heavy guns were fitted, nothing false about it. But people (the Japanese, Americans and Germans) didn't think it through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • VMSB-241, VT-6, VS-6 and VB-6 aren't going to mean anything to most readers, so a little description would be helpful, especially since all those links are red. "Torpedo Squadron 6 (VT-6)" would work I think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The type of aircraft flown by each squadron is given in close proximity to the unit designations. Do you really think that readers can't make that link?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... shot down all fifteen, leaving only a single survivor treading water." There's an WP:EGG problem here; putting the name of the survivor either in the text or in a note would probably be best. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "literally blew out the hangar sides" is a little informal; I made the edit, but got reverted by another editor. "literally" has to go, since it's not likely anyone would think you meant that metaphorically; one option would be "blew out the entire hangar sides". I also got reverted adding "(aviation fuel)" after avgas; it's fine either way, your call. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • literally is gone; I'm OK with avgas as is since it's linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all that, I guess I better Support (per the usual disclaimer) or people will get the idea I hated it; you did good, and you know more about copyediting than the typical successful writer. Keep it up. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments. About time we had another birdfarm make the run towards FA :P Just a few observations: not sure if there A-class nitpicky or FA-class nitpicky, so treat with as you see fit.
    • At two sentances, the "Armor" section is probably too small to deal with as a separate section. Maybe roll it into the above section for "Armament and armor"?
      • Done
    • It might be worth describing makeup of the carrier's air group in the text of the article...probably wouldn't need more than a paragraph all up describing what they were, how many, and their roles. You could roll it into a renamed "Flight deck arrangements", which at the moment has hangar details in addition to the flight decks.
      • Unfortunately I haven't found a source for what the air group was like prior to Pearl Harbor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any other sources that deal with Kaga's role at Midway? Some variety amongst the cites would be nice.
      • Shattered Sword is the best source on the battle yet published.
    • Is there any more information available on searches for the wreck of Kaga? Was the Nauticos search a specific attempt to find the ship, or were they looking for other things and had a "Hmm, that's funny" moment? Were there other attempts to find the wreck?
      • They were doing a general search for the carriers as part of a test of a new acoustic imaging system.
        • A line or two of context to that effect would be a good addition, methinks. -- saberwyn 02:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More if I come up with any. Brilliant job so far. -- saberwyn 06:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I want to support this article, which is very comprehensive, well sourced and well illustrated, but it needs a bit more work:
    • The first sentence suggests that the ship was originally named "Kaga Province" - is this correct?
      • No, the formerly is present because the province is no longer a governmental entity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that the Japanese carriers at Midway were "ambushed" by American aircraft as is claimed in the introduction - these aircraft searched for and found the ships
    • "designated for scrapping" is a bit confusing - it might be better to say that it was decided to scrap the ships
      • Not sure that is an issue, but whatever. Changed.
    • The sentence which begins "This heavy gun armament was provided..." is uncited
    • "Kaga's funnel gases were collected in a pair of long horizontal ducts which discharged at the rear of each side of the flight deck, in spite of predictions by a number of prominent naval architects that they would not keep the hot gases away from the flight deck" should probably be broken into two sentences
    • Is anything known about the ship's service between 1929 and 1932, and is it possible to say more about her activities in the 1930s?
      • If you find anything more substantial than what I've provided, I'll be happy to incorporate it into the article. Even Peattie doesn't discuss her activities during these periods.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The data on the characteristics of the ship's guns in the article's prose seems unnecessary and greatly disrupts the flow of the article. Material such as "They fired 23.45-kilogram (51.7 lb) projectiles at a rate between eight and fourteen rounds per minute at a muzzle velocity of 700–725 m/s (2,300–2,380 ft/s); at 45°, this provided a maximum range of 14,800 meters (16,185 yd), and a maximum ceiling of 9,400 meters (30,840 ft)" (and many other examples) is heavy going and of marginal value in this article given that it's about an aircraft carrier - this kind of detail belongs in the articles on the guns.
      • Sorry, no. All ships without a class article get this level of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my view this kind of material is trivial in this article and renders chunks of it difficult to read, particularly to non-specialists. Moreover, it's not consistent with the FA and A class articles on the carriers HMAS Melbourne and Sydney, both of which were modified so heavily as to be unique ships from early points in their career. In addition it's unclear to me why if this kind of detail is considered necessary on the ship's guns it isn't provided for equally important topics such as the ship's machinery, radar, communications equipment, accommodation and, of course, air wing. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I honestly could care less what's been done on other carrier FAs. My own policy is that all singleton ships get the full technical treatment regarding armament, armor, etc. as there's no other place to put it since there's no class article (the proper home for all that detail). See HMS Queen Mary for an example that simply hasn't made it to ACR yet. And, no, I don't agree that it is best relegated to the gun article, if any. As for the other stuff you mention, I've reached the limits of my sources, or of Japanese technology since no radar was fitted. Again, if I knew what the early air wing consisted of I'd have given that information, but I simply cannot find any references that lists that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a reasonable request that we not vary too much on the level of detail that strikes some people as technical. OTOH, I have two objections to this objection: I see similar levels of detail all the time (for instance, in the article I'm busy copyediting at the moment, SMS Blücher). The other objection I think I'll insert into what is turning into an ongoing discussion at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quality of the article's prose is sufficient to meet the A class criteria, but I think that a copy edit would be helpful before this goes to a FAC.
      • Thanks for the comments, but do you have any more detailed criticism than the above? General comments like yours do absolutely nothing towards pointing out issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The whole thing could to with a mild copy edit, but there's nothing that's so bad it justifies being highlighted. Given that this was a suggestion towards changes prior to a FAC I'm a bit surprised by the tone of your response. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You managed to push one of my buttons about copy-edits. Dank was kind enough to go through it with a fine-tooth coomb and I can't find anything objectionable so telling me that it needed one, without providing specifics, is less than useful, IMO. I asked at the start of this ACR for specific suggestions for improvements on the prose, not generic statements. I'm happy to make changes if they're pointed out, but I refuse to get wrapped around the axle in trying to figure out what exactly was meant by general comments as I find it very easy to second-guess myself about my writing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this is an article about an aircraft carrier, I was surprised that it provides very little coverage of the composition of her air wing over time - a section or equivalent on this topic might be justified.
    • On that topic, it should be noted that Kaga was the trials ship for the famous Zero fighter in June 1940 (see Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power, p. 91) Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't think that that was particularly significant, plus there's a problem with the dates. According to Lengerer she's being overhauled that month and June isn't late enough in the overhaul for her likely to be available to conduct said trials.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nick-D felt that the article needs copyediting before FAC; I did it once, and I'm going through it again (and not finding that much ... can you point me to anything in particular, Nick?) Only thing I've been reverted on this time around is, I changed: [The hangars opened onto the middle and lower flight decks to allow aircraft to take off directly from the] "hangars, while" [landing operations were in progress on the main flight deck above.] to: "hangars at the same time that". The point is that "while" usually has one of 3 senses, roughly corresponding to "and", "on the other hand", and "at the same time as". My guess was that the last sense was meant here, is that right? - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I prefer while, which was used in the 3rd sense. I don't remember reverting that sentence, though it's possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Loosmark reverted me. "While" is fine but only without the comma; I've now fixed it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are different interpretations of this at WP:LINK: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other ...". I think the objection you're going to see at FAC is that, in general, Wikipedia readers can probably figure out that if they want to know about "torpedo bombers", and they see a link to Mitsubishi B1M3 torpedo bombers, they can get there by clicking on that link. This is coming up a lot, so I'm checking to see if it's cool with everyone for me to condense two side-by-side links (Mitsubishi B1M3 torpedo bombers) into one. Of course, you can always link "torpedo bombers" somewhere else in the article where it's not right next to another link. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you tell me a little more about the word "bunkerage"? It's not in standard dictionaries (in that sense), most of the 42K ghits are not in that sense, and I can't find a useful Wikipedia link. Could we either define it in context or use a different word? - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It means fuel storage; I've added another entry to the nautical terms glossary for it. But I've changed the wording regardless.
  • I don't know why people care about this, but they seem to care: it's a MOS violation to write "30 Zeros, 23 Vals, and 30 Kates" but "twenty-six Nakajima B5N". Either write out every number less than roughly 100 or every number less than 10 (your choice), except for numbers in front of units and a few other exceptions. The most recent conversation was Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_116#WP:MOS#Numbers as figures or words. If you tell me which way you want to go, I'll make the edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly I'm having issues wrapping my head around this sort of petty crap as I was trying to follow the general statement about spelling out quantities at the head of the section while making allowances for the conversion template. Choose one way or another and I'll try to remember which way to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. Although WP:MOS allows either, the cutoff between nine and 10 (which, interestingly enough, has to be written "9 and 10" or "nine and ten" ... go figure) is the heavy favorite. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment change to Support

  • The aircraft totals in the inf box do not add up. 90 total 72 + 18 storage / 18 + 37 + 37 = 92
    • That's why it has a date after the second list, so that you'll know that's the airplane inventory at a different time. Theoretically, everything in infoboxes would be better off with dates since armament and aircraft were always changing, but the sources don't always give a date and we tend not to list it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also it needs a cite unless I missed it they type and totals of aircraft carried is not covered anywhere in the article.
    • You're the third person to ask. Sturm says: "See my response to saberwyn's second comment." - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the service in World War II section - both 9 A6M Zeros and nine A6M Zeros in the first paragraph.
    • See above. It's a judgment call based on this from WP:MOSNUM: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." If two quantities are in the same list, but widely separated, it's hard to say whether that rule kicks in or not. Apart from that and a few other exceptions, we're writing it out for "nine" or less and using numerals for 10 or greater. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the battle of Midway section - sixteen Marine SBD Dauntless dive-bombers - a dozen B-17 Flying Fortress and fourteen Devastators is used should it not be 16, 12 and 14 ?
    • Thanks, fixed. If you see any more, please let me know; we were originally going the other way (writing out most of the numbers less than 100). - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 5, 6, 24 and 29 would appear to need ndash;'s added
    • Only if some of the information came from pages in between. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a mixture of ref style used should ref 7 be pp.102–103 not 102–03? same with ref 21,22 and 33
    • Are we looking at the same article? - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is ref 24 pp. 126, 515 or p. 126 and 515
  • This may already have been asked and answered but what makes http://www.navweaps.com reliable.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Group While looking to verify the aircraft capacity as per Jim's comment I found the aircraft for the early air group that I'd overlooked before. I've also rewritten the Pearl Harbor section as it seems that I'd confused some of Kaga's and Akagi's targets.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes if you check ref 1 its written pp.185–187 but later on ref 7 is pp.102–03 and the same mixture of style is used throughout --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah now I get it ... you're objecting to "187" vs. "03". I don't see people objecting to that much, but I can change it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support - meets the A-class requirements in my view, though I am undecided on the aircraft naming issue. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Indiana class battleship[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GA class recently and I think it is ready for A-class now. I will probably be taking this to FAC afterwards, so feel free to nitpick. Yoenit (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with external links or with alt text. Two dab links need to be located and if at all possible removed.
      •  Done Fixed two links pointing to disambiguation pages and several pointless redirects while I was at it.
    • Can you adjust the cost of the plan in the first section to include the cost today when adjusted for inflation? I will not hold this one against you, but it would be interesting to see what the cost would have been.
      •  Done About $6.7 billion.
    • What was the point of having torpedo launching devices on the battleships? Were they designed to counter some sort of threat, or was their purpose more along the lines of 'walking softly and carrying a big gun'?
      • Torpedo launchers were practically standard on early battleships. They don't appear to have ever successfully hit something, but were included anyway. I assume it was just the idea of more weapons = better.
    • In the propulsion section you note that the original engines were switched out, did this include the engines used for the auxiliaries? The article doesn't say but I would like to know.
      • Engines were never switched out, but boilers were replaced. Reilly and Scheina do not mention if they also replace the auxiliary boilers, but looking at their data table I assume not. Auxiliary boilers have no direct effect on a ships speed and their low speeds appear to be the reason for the upgrade, as the faster Oregon kept her original boilers.
    • You need a citation for the information provided in the second footnote. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done
  • Support TomStar81 (Talk) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual disclaimer. I'm doing my usual copyediting; feel free to revert any of the changes, but please tell me if you do. Please fix the problems with units from the Indiana class battleship#Protection section to the end; for instance, "3 inch (76 mm) outside it" (inches), "2.75 inch (70 mm) thick inside" (inches), "14 inch (360 mm) armored bulkheads" (14-inch). Don't use a hyphen when the unit is abbreviated ... hyphothetically, "4 ft ladder", although to be consistent in this article, "4-foot ladder" would probably be better. More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done At least, I think so. Stuff like hyphens in abbreviations and feet/foot (which to use as a plural?) is completely new to me, always used the SI system before. Don't happen to know a tutorial which treats that kind of stuff by any chance? Yoenit (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • For American English articles, we're fortunate that almost all copyeditors for journalists follow AP Stylebook (by online subscription, or get the book, but wait a month or so for the 2010 edition), and Chicago is persuasive on things that AP Stylebook doesn't cover, and generally in the publishing industry. But I pretty much covered it in the examples above; use a hyphen when "2-foot" is modifying a noun and use "2 feet" when it's not, and don't use hyphens with abbreviated units. "4-inch-thick plating" would be okay, except that we like to convert these units at every occurrence (a decision I disagree with, but that's another story), and "4-inch-(10 cm)-thick plating" would just be silly. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see you're going with "17-inch (430 mm) thick barbettes"; that's technically wrong but good enough (because hyphen usage is waning in general in professional American writing). I'll leave it alone. If you're going that way, make an effort not to use the word "thick" whenever "thickness" is implied by context. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, "a 10 inch (250 mm) thick single forging" (best would be "a single forging 10 inches (250 mm) thick", to avoid the impossible "10-inch-(250 mm)-thick"). - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done
    • I'm starting to wonder if the word "nominal" has a special meaning in battleship design, because the authors we rely on the most tend to use it a lot. "designed based on the nominal draft" doesn't make sense to me; it sounds like "designed based on the design". - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Is "The placement of the belt armor was based on the design draft" an acceptable replacement? Yoenit (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, wait, now I see, I misunderstood "draft". I've changed it to "... based on the design, which called for a draft of 24 feet ..."; how does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that would change the meaning of the sentence, since the design provided the draft instead of calling for it. I tried something else and went with "The placement of the belt armor was based on the draft from the design, which was..."
    • "she decommissioned, only to be temporarily recommissioned": I think "she decommissioned" is a little jargony, and I'd probably prefer "she was decommissioned", but I've seen it in sources and it's not that bad. But if you're going to use it, I think it would be better to be consistent: "she decommissioned, only to temporarily recommission ..." - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • readded the "was" (I am pretty sure it got removed by an earlier copy edit)
        • Hm, gotta love "anyone can edit". Okay, check on the other instances of "commissioned" and "decommissioned", please. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done I missed this reply at first. I fixed four more instances of a missing "was"
    • "re-designated": I changed it to "redesignated", but feel free to revert if the sources seem to insist on the hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay done. Don't get discouraged by all the edits; in the publishing world, it's not considered the writer's job to catch all that stuff. Again, feel free to revert, but tell me please. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anything that improves the article is good, so no problem here. Thank you for your very thorough copy edit. Yoenit (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing, I've mentioned this in previous ACRs: I don't think we should assume that the reader automatically knows what "the Indianas" means, because that's uncommon jargon outside of naval articles. Per WP:LEAD, if there's another name for "Indiana class battleship" used in the article, it should be bolded in the first sentence, and I made it so: "The three Indiana-class battleships, also known as the Indianas, were ..." - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about this for quite a while and looked up my sources, but Indianas does not seem to be a commonly used nickname for the class, so I replaced all cases of Indianas with Indiana Class. Yoenit (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review - I don't think spanamwar.com is reliable. Otherwise everything looks good. I did have a look at that Scientific American article, but I didn't have my computer with me and I didn't have time to go back in the middle of my exams. Sorry :-/ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is your problem with spanamwar, besides that is a website? The site is neutral, provides sources and seems well established. I have more faith in them than the DANFS, which is blatantly pro-American and does not provide sources. In the ideal world I would have used the sources given on spanamwar, but I don't have acces to any them. Yoenit (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lack of consistent conversions within the battleship clique is getting really annoying. But once again: Conversions for nautical miles and knots need the English equivalents of mi and mph respectively. Additionally you're missing conversions in several places.
    •  Done Thank you for your comments. I have corrected the conversions. I only convert units the first time I mention them in a section, especially for things like gun sizes, which are treated as names. If this is not compliant with the MoS, feel free to oppose or change them yourself. Yoenit (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that spamawar is not a good source. If anything, use the books that are referenced there. --Brad (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent Work! Cam (Chat) 03:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • As per Brad's comment, the tonnage needs a conversion, and it needs to be specified which ton it is (i.e., short, long, metric).
    • 4,000 tons in the General characteristics needs conversion as well.
      •  Done Circumstantial evidence points to everything being given in long tons. Do I need to convert it to short tons as wel? Yoenit (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I know, the USN always used long tons for ships, but it might be useful to give it in both short and metric. You can just use {{convert|4000|LT}}to give both conversions. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That template does only give metric tons and {{convert|4000|LT|MT ST}} does not work, despite what is stated in the list of conversions, so I used {{convert|4000|LT|t ST}} Yoenit (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else looks pretty good. As to the spanam.com source, it's probably reliable, but I too would prefer sources of the dead-tree variety. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only dead tree source I have is a book of 1898, writen by Schley's son from 1902, written by a journalist about Schley's heroism in the Battle of Santiago de Cuba, but I can probably link most of the text to that book and the first hand accounts of witnesses given on spanamwar, if that would be considered an improvement. Getting hold of a proper dead tree source is gonna be somewhat expensive, as the Spanish-American war is not a topic widely covered in Dutch libraries. Yoenit (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since there seems to be consensus that dead tree stuff beats Spanamwar, I have tried to relink all citations to Spanamwar directly to the book Schley and Santiago, a witness account from a journalist aboard Schley's flagship. Although rather pro-American I am using it for facts, not opinions. The only thing I still have to link to Spanamwar for is Oregon's nickname, but I can easily spotcheck that by looking at the titles of these books Battleship Oregon: Bulldog of the Navy : An Oregon Documentary and McKinley's Bulldog, the Battleship Oregon. Is there no way I can use the book title as source? Yoenit (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Hannover[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Yet another German battleship. This was one of the last pre-dreadnoughts built by the Germans, and indeed completed after Dreadnought. I appreciate any and all comments aimed at improving the article. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • After SMS Hannover, I added: (German: "His Majesty's ship Hannover"). That seems to be the only approach that everyone likes so far to the problem of answering the first two questions most readers will have (what's SMS, and what or where is Hannover?), but I don't feel strongly about it, I'm just trying to get consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have real strong opinions about it either, so it'll work for me. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the "German:" based on an objection in a current FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a reminder that you're welcome to revert anything I do. Also, I can say more or less about reasons for my edits, it's your call. I default to making edits silently, unless I know that there's some issue people might want to hash out (or re-hash or re-re-hash). - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problems here. If I ever see anything I have a question about I'll ask. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get a total of two hits for "Reichsmarine" in titles or subtitles of English-language books on Amazon; better to go with "German Navy" or "German Navy of the Weimar Republic" or nothing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about these 1.5k hits in Google Books? It's about half as much for Kriegsmarine, which is to be expected, given that the KM fought WWII and the RM didn't fight anything. Parsecboy (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm disappointed that Amazon has only two of these. The two Google book searches that do it for me are books in English with "german navy" in the title or subtitle and books in English with "reichsmarine" in the title or subtitle. I had to dig through the results because, sadly, Google's search facility sucks and includes a lot of German books in the second search. The first search did it for me: there were very few books where "German Navy" referred to the Reichsmarine (understandably, they tended to be about the Kriegsmarine or the Imperial German Navy), and the "Reichsmarine" search gave me enough to be able to make a case that this is a well-used term in English sources, and also the more precise term. Thanks for the pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ship was laid down ... at the Kaiserliche Werft dockyard ...": agreed, use the German words here (because it's a company), and don't italicize (see WP:MOSTEXT and WP:MOS), but some readers will want to know that the company name means "Imperial shipyard", so I added that translation at the link. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally stay away from issues with units, but I want to pass along that I never see "in" for inches in the main text in publications intended for a general (not technical or targeted) readership; it's confusing. I'll see if I can find something about this in style guides. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes sense. I fixed the one in reference to the 13.5-inch shell, are there any more? Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't pick up anything searching for _in_ or -in_ so that's probably all of them. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "28 cm (11 in)" is easy enough to understand, and anywhere else where "in" is in parentheses. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand (I think) why your sources consider the ship was "obsolete" when launched ... she was likely to be sunk in a solo protracted battle against HMS Dreadnought, and not able to sink her, so she was obsolete as a capital ship ... but you don't explain it and I think most of your readers won't know. Maybe something like "obsolete as a capital ship, that is, [a little explanation]". With the longer explanation I'm thinking of, the "despite" phrase starting the next paragraph wouldn't be necessary, and I deleted it, but you might still need it, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a line to the intro and a note in the body about the advantages Dreadnought possessed. How does that look now? Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's better, and it works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a suggestion at WT:WikiProject_Ships#Units_in_ship_articles on how we present some of the units in the sidebar; I'll come back to this later. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links, ext links work (no action required);
    • the image lacks alt text (but I won't oppose on this, although I'd like to suggest adding it);
    • obsolete and obselescent are slightly different, however, you have "Hannover was obsolete" then "Despite her obsolescence"...(if they were obsolete, it should be "obsoleteness" according to the Macquaurie Dictionary) (in the lead);
    • in the Battle of Jutland section "4:00" (as in ...reached Horns Reef by 4:00 on 1 June") should be "04:00" for consistency;
    • in the World War I section, I'd like to suggest adding the following clause to the first sentence: "Following the outbreak of World War I, Hannover was tasked..." I feel this would improve the narrative flow (but it is only a suggestion);
    • in the World War I section I think "8" (as in 8 pre-dreadnoughts) should be "eight";
    • in the World War I section, should "mining operation" be "minelaying operation"?
    • in the Battle of Jutland section, Grand Fleet is linked for a second time (it was already linked in the section above);
    • in the Later actions section, the second sentence seems to be missing a word (Hannover the rest of II...);
    • in the Postwar section, "most modern components of Germany's surface fleet was..." (should it be "was" or "were"?)
    • some ISBNs have hyphens and others don't
    • in the References section the Herwig and Williamson sources should have endashes for date ranges in the titles;
    • is there a source for Note # 1;
    • Citations # 21 and 22 are to the same source (Tarrant, p. 195) and could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS (you've done this for a few others already). — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the thorough review. I think I've got everything you pointed out. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. Looks good. I think there is still one outstanding, though: have you got a citation for Note # 1? — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, yes, I've added it now. Thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One point for consideration though: many of the battle engagements cited in the Jutland section only give units in metric, and I for one can not think in metric. It may therefore be a good a good idea to add conversions for the sizes given in the section so the standard crowd can grasp what weapons were fired. Also, what classifies a vessel as a guard ship? The guns were removed but was anything added in their place? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I usually only convert the first instance of a unit (especially for frequently repeated figures like the main battery guns) and then leave them with just the metric.
    • Only some of the guns were removed, but Staff isn't clear as to which guns. Groner states that in Reichsmarine service the ship retained its 28cm and 17cm guns, so I'd wager it was the 8.8cm guns that were removed, but I wouldn't add that without something stating as much. Parsecboy (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand[edit]

Promoted, Woody (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk), Parsecboy (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets all of the criteria. It's amply referenced, covers all of the main points and most details, and is gramatically correct with pictures to break up text flow. I'm going to put this through FAC soon, if time permits. I'll inform Parsec Buggie111 (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query, is Parsec a co-nom due to the edit count? If so he should add his name above. -MBK004 01:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked him on his talk, as I don't want to be "forging" sigs. Buggie111 (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'll add myself as a co-nom. Thanks for letting me know. Parsecboy (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, as to the article itself, it is rather short (13kb or so in length), but it's about as comprehensive as it can get. The ship (and the Austria navy as a whole) didn't see much action during the war, so there isn't a ton to say about the service history. Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Ah, nicely done: "SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand (German: "His Majesty's ship Archduke Franz Ferdinand") was ..."; I should have thought of that when reviewing the other SMS articles. It makes sense to translate Erzherzog, so why not throw in SMS while you're at it? That's more compact than making a separate note for SMS. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you suggest putting that?Buggie111 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You already did that; I'm saying that's a great choice that I hadn't thought of in previous articles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with "Work on the ship had been delayed by two strikes in 1908 and 1909, by welders and riveters, respectively." But if you want my advice on tone, "respectively" sounds a little old-fashioned, unless you really need it. This would work: "Work on the ship had been delayed by a welders' strike in 1908 and a riveters' strike in 1909." - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More free advice, it's your lucky day: nothing wrong with "A month and a half after her launch, on October 22, ...", but when you do the same thing two more times in the same paragraph (telling us how many months it is from one date to another), that's a bit much. We're not aiming the articles at readers who have to be reminded that October comes after September. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I again concur. Buggie111 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You probably know better than I do, but doesn't "casemated single mounts" sound better than "casemate single mounts"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it's not covered by WP:MILMOS or WP:MOSSHIP, every Wikipedia article I've seen on ships has followed the day-month format. I notice dates are being changed during this review to month-day; is everyone okay with that? - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer day-month, but the majority of the article was month-day, so I changed it to conform. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's an open question how far we want to extend the metaphor that a ship is a "she". I don't have any objection to using "whose", since "the X of which" can sound stilted, but I'd prefer "which" to "who" in "two German ships stationed in the Mediterranean who were attempting to break out ..." - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usual disclaimer, and I made the changes mentioned above, along with my usual copyediting. I think you're going to get opposition over the month/day format, and even though I understand why the article is shorter than some A-class articles, there's a chance you'll get opposition on that basis. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support Would it not be better to have the painting of the actual ship in the infobox, rather than an image of the sister ship? I appreciate they were near identical, but it just seems a bit.... odd. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, my view is the picture is preferable for the infobox image because the painting is pretty fuzzy and hard to make out. The picture gives a much better idea of what the ship looked like. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some further points:
    • There are a few niggles with prose relating to how the ship is addressed. For instance the term "the ship" is used five times in just seven sentences in the lead. Later on it is a little overused again, and then the ship is referred to twice by name in two sentences at the start of the Service History.
      • Will try to standardize.
    • The link to Franz Ferdinand at the start of WW1 is good, but I feel the namesake should have been mentioned earlier in the prose (although its worth keeping the relationship at the start of the WW1 section).
    • "The first seaplanes to be used in combat..." Is this the first ever recorded use? This is quite an interesting fact that would benefit from a bit more detail.
Other than that, it looks good! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've switched to support. A few things though - the infobox and prose aren't consistent about the date of launch. I'll assume the prose is correct as its referenced and agrees with my copy of Jane's fighting ships of WWI. With regard to the image, I thought that might be the case. I don't really fully agree with having an image of a different ship in the lead when another is available, but it isn't a deal breaker. That said though I think it would be an issue if you decide to go to FAC (there is an image in my copy of Janes, but it isn't very good). Buggie, I'm afraid the google books link isn't loading for me, but I can guess its good stuff! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps, there are a few images of the ship on the net that must be public domain I'd have thought. I bow to anyone else who knows about copyright etc... though. Here and here. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on when the photos were published and/or who took them and when they died. Since we don't have any of that information yet, we can't prove they're in the public domain. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected as much (wasn't sure about the Flickr one though. Best of luck, it's nice to see a short article meet A class. Gives me hope! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
THere's some images of Erzherzog herself on the other wiki languages, but they don't come through when I paste them in . Buggie111 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because they're on those wikis rather than wikicommons. They look inviting though, but I'll leave it for someone else to decide if they're ok to use. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links, ext links all work, all images have alt text (no action required);
    • Are you able to add a date of death for the author to File:Erz ff colorcard.jpg? The licence states "life of the author plus 70 years", but doesn't state specifically when the author died so people can confirm the 70 years have passed. I'd suggest that if you know his date of death that you should include this in bracket beside his name to remove any ambiguity;
      • He died in 1939. I've added that to the image page. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, now that I think about it, according to the URAA, the image may not be PD in the US, which is a problem. It's unquestionably PD in Europe, but we need to know the publication date for the card. The issue is, according to the URAA, any work that was not PD on 1 January 1996 had its copyright extended, based on the year of publication. If it was before 1923, it's still PD, but if it was 1923-78, it's 95 years from the date of publication. After 1978 the copyright reverts to 70 years after the death of the author. So we need to make sure it was published before 1923 for us to be able to use it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which, incidentally, is why we can't use many of Willy Stöwer's excellent paintings... Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The cityofart website states that it was painted in 1908.; sorry for making assumptions, but back then, it was published as soon as it was realeased. Buggie111 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Alright, can we get a direct link to the photo page with the date on it? Right now it's just the generic cityofart link. I'm making a big deal about this because I want to have our bases covered when we go to FAC; image reviews can be a pain in the neck if the copyrights aren't crystal clear. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is some variation in the format used for dates in the article. You mostly seem to use "Month Day, Year", but I found a couple that use "Day Month Year", e.g in the Construction section "...later on 15 January 1911, and...on 15 September";
      • Fixed. I suppose that's an effect of two different people writing the article (I generally prefer "day month" myself). Are there any more like that? Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the References section, ref # 4 (Austrian Battleship Ashore) needs an accessedate, also its date format is different to the "Retrieved 8 September 2009" in ref # 14;
    • in the Bibliography section I think that the title of the Vego source isn't capitalised correctly. I think it should be "Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy, 1904–14";
    • in the Bibliography, both the Hore and Ireland sources have hyphens in the ISBN, but the others don't have hyphens, these should probably be consistent. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The service history is understandably a bit short. Of course as you point out above the ship (and the Austrian navy) didn't see much action during the war which explains this. Again I note that you touch on this in the article but could you possibly expand (ever so slightly) on this? Specifically why did they remain in port after the raid on Ancona? I myself have no knowledge on this aspect of WWI and it may aid other readers also. This isn't a war stopper for me though and if you don't feel this needs to added I have no dramas with that;  Done
      • I should be able to get to this tomorrow sometime. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reworded a couple of sentences so please check my work and change any you don't agree with; and  Done
    • Could 'frogmen' (in last section) be wikilinked? Might be helpful.  Done
  • Suport - Overall this article easily meets the A class criteria IMO. Top work. Anotherclown (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'll support this, however, I have some questions. Sorry to throw in a wrench this late in the game. I have a couple of prose questions... and you know that there will be prose questions at FAC.
"After returning to Pola, the entire fleet was mobilized for possible hostilities" What does this mean? There was an imminent threat? From whom? and what was it about? (actually, I think I know, but I also think it should be in here).
Frequent incidences of 5 words when one or two would work well. For example: That night, a severe storm caused her to break loose from her moorings. That night, she broke lose from her moorings in a severe storm. OR She broke loose from her moorings that night in a severe storm. She was completed by June 5, 1910, when she was commissioned into the fleet. She was completed by June 5, 1910 and was commissioned into the fleet. Among the ships from other navies were the British pre-dreadnought HMS King Edward VII, the Italian pre-dreadnought Ammiraglio di Saint Bon, the French armoured cruiser Edgar Quinet, and the German light cruiser SMS Breslau. Ships from other navies included the British pre-dreadnought....etc.
that whole paragraph on the sea planes, plus Serbia and Montenegro sentences, is confusing.
The ship was named after Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose assassination brought on the outbreak of World War I... You could say ... whose assassination triggered WWI....
when the war started, the ship was mobilized? What does that mean? Taken out of mothballs? staffed and crewed? Prepared for combat?
At 20:00 on May 23, 1915, four hours of the Italian declaration of war reached Pola, Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, her sister ships, and the rest of the fleet departed Pola to bombard the Italian coast.... First, shouldn't read "after" instead of "of"? Second, why is Pola linked on the third mention, instead of first ( a few paragraphs earlier)? At 20:00 on 23 May 1915, four hours after the Italian declaration of war reached them, the fleet left Pola to bombard the Italian coast.
It sounds awkward to refer to EFF, her sister ships, and the rest of the fleet. Can we say the Fleet?
How big was the fleet? (did I miss that?) Most readers don't know diddly about an Austrian navy, other than what they heard in the Sound of Music. So my guess would be that there needs to be some minor background. Just a thought.Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tackle those. What did SOM say? Buggie111 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Parsec has fixed them. Buggie111 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is SOM? Still don't know much about the fleet, generally. And there doesn't seem to be an article on it. This article disagrees with Habsburg article...Admiral wants to husband his fleet so he uses mines etc (in this article). In Habsburg article, there is a shortage of coal. Is it both? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's both. And SOM is Sounnd of Music. I thought it was a weird comment. Buggie111 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Deutschland class battleship[edit]

Promoted Woody (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


I rewrote this article at the beginning of the month, it has since passed GA, and I feel it meets the requirements for A-class. This article will eventually make its way to FAC, so please feel free to nitpick :) Thanks in advance to all editors who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sentence "the five Deutschland class ships came to the aid of the mauled battlecruisers of the I Scouting Group when the Deutschlands intervened and prevented the British battlecruisers under Admiral David Beatty from pursuing the German ships" seems too long to me. I think there should be another comma, or even a full stop, in there somewhere. Otherwise, I don't see anything big. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and nitpicks:

  • Toolbox: No disambig links, external links are all good, all images have alt text.
  • Lead image: The infobox image carries the caption "Deutschland class battleships in line", but I count at least nine vessels, as opposed to the five ships in the class. Could the caption be tweaked to clarify?
  • In the "Machinery" and "Armament" sections, the capabilities of Deutschland are less than her later sister ships. Was there a particular reason or impetus for the improved propulsion system and thicker armour?
  • In "Inter-war years", the last sentance states that the ships were replaced in active service by "newer ships"...do you know what ships these were?
  • The "World War II" section states that Schleswig-Holstein was sunk in shallow water in December 1944, but continued to serve as a glorified coastal battery until gutted by a fire. When was the fire?
  • What happened to the hulks of Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien after they became immobilised? -- saberwyn 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More observations as I come up with them. Very well done so far. I'm happy to call it a support. -- saberwyn 03:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The ships nearest the observer are the Deutschlands. I'm not quite sure what to add to make that clear. Any ideas?
      • Its a pity the Bundesarchiv caption doesn't give us more to work with. You could do something along the lines of "Deutschland class vessels leading a line of German battleships"? -- saberwyn 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen any explanation. All Staff says is The first ship of the class, Deutschland, was almost identical in every way to its predecessors...After Deutschland, however, the remaining ships of the Deutschland class were built to a modified design (p. 5), but no explanation as to why. I would imagine the design staff was incredibly overworked; Groner says that the Braunschweig design was completed 1900-01, the design for Deutschland followed in 1901-02, and the design for the other four ships in 1902-1903. A year seems like a long time, but I don't know if it's long enough to first do all the design work and then conduct all the testing needed to make sure the new ship doesn't pull a Vasa on its maiden voyage. That's just my assumption though.
      • It might be worth adding a line to the "Design" or "General characteristics" section using the little info provided by Staff and Groner (i.e., while the design for Deutschland was completed in 1902, the design was modified over the following year for the other four ships, particularly the engines and armour). On a related note, are the characteristics in the infobox for Deutschland or the other four...it might be worth noting. -- saberwyn 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reworked the design section to include this information. The only thing in the infobox that is part of the difference between the ships is the belt armor thickness. In the infobox its the figure for the later four ships. I added a note to clarify this. Parsecboy (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What about the propulsion horsepower figure? The infobox says 17,000, but the body says Deutschland was rated at a thousand less. -- saberwyn 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good call, I added another note for this one. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a note explaining this.
    • Williamson doesn't give a time period on the fire, but he does say that the crew was then taken ashore to assist in the defense of Marienburg; according to that article the battle was in early 1945 up to March, so it wasn't all that long between the sinking and the fire. Maybe a month or two. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you think we could get the phrase "Within a couple of months of the bombing, a fire permanently disabled the ship, and her crew...", or would that be too close to OR? -- saberwyn 13:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would hesitate to add anything without a clear indication in the source. Parsecboy (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It very much looks like Class A in my opinionSteven1969 (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OK, this is bizzare. The link in note 5 for the later Deutschland class (the panzerschiffen) is a redlink. But when you click on it you get the correct article despite this...?? never mind, a tweak to the sclass code fixed it. - The Bushranger (talk)
That's odd, it was a redlink as Deutschland-class heavy cruiser (I hadn't looked at the target article when I put that in) and then when I changed it to Deutschland-class cruiser it worked fine for me. All's well that ends well though, right? Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Can we get citations for the notes in the article? At the moment only the last one has a source for the material present, and that concerns me.
    • The last part of the World War II section fails to provide the fate of the battleship Schlesien beyond noting that she sunk 3 April. Can we assume that she too was broken up, or was she destroyed by the allies/captured as a war prize? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • in the infobox the date ranges for Built and In commission use emdashes when they should be endashes per WP:DASH;
  • in the Construction section, this sentence is missing something: "Although she was launched on 29 September 1905 and commissioned on 1 October 1907" (something like "Although she was launched on 29 September 1905, she was not commissioned until...)
  • in the World War II section, I suggest wikilinking "RAF" as it is not mentioned earlier and some readers might not know what it refers to;
  • in the World War II section, in the last sentence, I suggest changing the first instance of the word "artillery" to "guns" to avoid repitition;
  • in the References section a couple of the titles don't have endashes for date ranges: Herwig, Newton, Williamson. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've got everything you mentioned. Thanks for your help! Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportOppose

  • Link to the Danish Belt.
  • Hasn't Whitley covered these ships in one of his books? If so, then it might have some more detail on their history under the Nazis.
  • I think some more details of their activities during WW2 are in order. Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea would be the place to start.
    • They didn't really do all that much during the war though. The most notable thing was S-H shelling Westerplatte; Schlesien spent a good chunk of the war sitting in harbor or ice-breaking. Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • About the only thing that Rohwer lists that you didn't have covered was Schlesien's fire support mission between 15 and 21 March 45, which I've added for you. For some reason I'd thought that there were trips to the English Channel for both ships, but no mention in Rohwer.
  • And some more details as to which operations they participated in during WWI would be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally prefer to keep the service history sections in class articles fairly short. I see class articles as being primarily technical articles with a short overview of the service histories of the ships, and the individual articles vice versa. See, for example, Moltke class battlecruiser. The idea is I'd like there to be as little overlap as possible between the content of the class and individual articles so they're not just duplicating information. Parsecboy (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I probably put too much into my class articles although I do tend to try and summarize the action instead of laying it all out in detail. But that's just me.
  • You've got a problem with Williamson, he's wrong on the date of sinking of Schlesien. Groener and Rohwer agree on 3 May, not 3 April. And Rohwer doesn't mention any further fire support missions by her before her sinking.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the date (supported by Conway's as well). I cut out the fire support bit though. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - two minor comments though:
    • in the lead you write that the German Navy was allowed "to retain several old battleships, including the four Deutschland-class ships" under the Treaty of Versailles. This seems to contradict the corresponding paragraph in the Inter-war years section where you wrote: "Following the German defeat in World War I, three of the Deutschland class battleships were allowed to be retained in the German Navy"; and  Done
    • the phrase 'prohibitively enormous strain' in the Design section seems a little like hyperbole, maybe reword?  Done

Anyway thats it from me. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reviewing the article. I clarified the intro and removed "enormous" from the line you mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Promoted. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian battleship Slava[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I believe that it meets all the criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Generally seems fine to me, although I don't have the expertise to discuss the content really (it seems complete to me, though). A couple of comments for the review:
    • there was one dab link to "Capstan", but I've fixed it;
    • ext links all work according to the tool;
    • the images don't have alt text and while it is no longer a requirement, I'd like to suggest adding it (but it won't affect my support);
    • I made a few tweaks myself, please revert if you don't agree with any of them;
    • the images all seem appropriately licenced, although the Russian copyright law is very confusing to me, so I might wrong;
    • in the Footnotes "McLaughlin, p. 299" (Citations # 11 and 14) could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS as you've done this already for McLaughlin p. 146;
    • in the Battle of Moon Sound section, I think that the times could be clarified by adding "am" to them per Wikipedia:MOS#Times.AustralianRupert (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally very well written and easy to follow for a technical subject. A few comments:
    • I rewrote "anti-torpedo boat guns" as "guns used against torpedo boats", and I want to explain why this isn't just a rehash of the "Queen Elizabeth-class ships" discussion on hyphen usage. I don't see how a reader can be confused by the latter, but a general reader who doesn't already know what you're talking about might read "anti-torpedo boat guns" to mean "boat guns used against torpedos". A common solution 20 years ago would have been to add a hyphen ("anti-torpedo-boat guns"), but this now looks wrong to enough readers that I prefer to just write out what we mean. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm OK with this, although I'd use my original phrasing if I was addressing a more knowledgeable audience.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer "listing" to "heeling". Every technical field uses lots of metaphors, but the metaphors should be avoided if the general reader might get the wrong idea, and I think there's a chance that people will read the original (and usual, per Google) meaning of "listing because of wind pressure" here, rather than "listing when making a sharp turn". (If heeling really has completely lost the original meaning, then there's no problem here, but the first 50 hits in a Google search suggested otherwise.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heeling is not a metaphor; it's what ships do when they turn, just like body roll in a car when it turns. Whereas ships list when they take on water, either through damage or voluntarily as Slava did to increase the elevation of her guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My approach is to use dictionaries, and if they don't say anything definitive (Merriam-Wester doesn't even list the word in this sense), then I try skimming 50 or 100 Google searches. That's hard at the moment because I'm on a slower connection; I'll give it another look when I get home. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, Webster's New World is fine with this. - Dank (push to talk) 05:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally avoid issues of unit conversions, but do you want 5 significant digits here? "23,000 yards (21,031 m)" - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since it's an approximate range, it's kinda pointless. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any objection to Kronstadt rather than Kronshtadt, following the spelling used in the article on that city? - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • None.
    • Any objection to "shell splinter damage" in place of "splinter damage")? - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, although damaged by shell splinters would probably be a better phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm undecided about the use of the German "sharp S" (ß). Several ships editors like to use it, and even use it in article titles. AP Stylebook rejects all but a few non-English characters, so you'll rarely see it in American newspapers. Per languages of the United States, "According to the 2000 US census, people of German ancestry make up the largest single ethnic group in the United States", and "German was widely spoken until the United States entered World War I" (including in my own state, North Carolina, btw), so it doesn't seem "neutral" to me to omit a common character in the German alphabet but allow almost all the French and Spanish diacriticals. Still, most English-language sources do omit the "sharp S". I'll leave it up to you guys. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Feel free to revert any of my edits, but please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - one minor quibble though: I generally prefer at least 2 paragraphs in the intro, if possible. Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I split it, although the first paragraph is pretty short.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe you could add some very basic technical stuff, like length, number of main guns, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Would prefer to see alt text, but I will not hold this against the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kongō class battlecruiser[edit]

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)


This article, concerning Japan's workhorse class of fast battleships from the Second World War, has been in development since November 2009. She passed her GAN on 28 March, was featured as the imaged DYK a day later, and has undergone minor tweaking since then. Respectfully submit for A-Class, with special thanks to Ed for his assistance with some of the sections, and to Parsecboy for his GAN Review. Cam (Chat) 01:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This article is in good shape, but needs a bit more work to reach A class. My suggestions for improvements are as follows:
    • Some material isn't covered by citations
Just so that I have a bit more to go on, would you mind citation-tag bombing the article so I can see what needs citing? Cam (Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems a bit unnecessary to say that Kongō "was the last Japanese capital ship constructed outside of the Japanese Empire" - unless any Japanese capital ships were built in Korea or China (which I'm pretty sure didn't happen) this could just be 'outside of Japan'.
Fixed. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "every single major engagement" is a bit over complex and could be replaced with 'all' if this was correct. However, as no Japanese BBs took part in the Battle of the Coral Sea it's not accurate, particularly as there were also a number of one-sided naval engagements in which large US carrier task forces clobbered Japanese bases without meeting significant opposition (eg, Operation Hailstone)
Fixed. The one-sided small ones aren't "major", but I've changed it anyways. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has some passive prose which could be converted to the active voice (eg, "During the Battle of Guadalcanal, Kongō and her sisters played an active role in fighting American naval forces, with Kongō and Haruna bombarding Henderson Field..." could be converted to Kongō and her sisters engaged American naval forces in the Battle of Guadalcanal. During this engagement Kongō and Haruna bombarded Henderson Field..." and "Following patrolling duty off China" could be 'After conducting patrols off China")
Alright. Dank has agreed to do a major copyedit once the ACR is completed, so I imagine a lot of those problems will be fixed then. I'll do what I can in the meantime though. Cam (Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally make those tweaks. I try to "tighten" things if a substantial improvement leaps to mind, for instance when I think we can use a word instead of a long clause, or when information is repeated that doesn't need to be repeated, but I don't generally fiddle with passive voice or with rearranging a sentence so that I can change 3 words to 1 word or lose a comma, unless I really don't think what you've got works. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I make an exception for the introduction; the introduction needs to be very tight and precise to pass FAC. In this article, people have already commented on the introduction and I'm not sure what they're looking for, so I didn't do much with it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Port Darwin' is an anachronism - the town was known as Darwin by the time of the war.
My bad. Fixed. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are First Reserve, Second Reserve and a 'Imperial Service Ship'?
First and Second Reserve are different levels of reserve (you call on first reserve before you call on second reserve), while Imperial Service Ships were vessels used by the royal family for transport. I've designated the first group as just "Reserve", and I'll outline what the Imperial Service ships were in a footnote. Cam (Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What islands other than Guadalcanal did Haruna bombard? I've read widely on this campaign and can't recall Japanese BBs making more attacks than just the famous bombardment of Henderson Field
None to my knowledge. I've tweaked accordingly. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some over-linking which needs to be fixed (eg, the Battle of Midway is repeatedly linked)
Alright. I'll try to fix that as best as I can. Cam (Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To say that "The primary armament of the Kongō class took the form of eight 14-inch (360 mm)/45 calibre naval guns." is rather unclear - could the guns have taken an alternate form? ;) - 'was' seems simpler and more appropriate than 'took the form'
Well, later vessels used 16-inch and 18-inch, but you're right that it does sound a little bit convoluted. Changed. Cam (Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are 'quick battlecruisers' a separate type of battlecruiser?
I don't believe so. I think battlecruiser is a pretty one-size-fits all kind of ship designation. I've changed that a bit just to more reflect that they were meant to have very high speeds. Cam (Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Propulsion section basically states that the ships remained coal-burners throughout their careers - is this correct?
Ah. Thanks for catching that. They were replaced by oil-fired boilers during reconstruction. I've added something on that. Cam (Chat) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article states that the ships where highly advanced at the time they entered service, but doesn't provide any information on how they compared to their World War II era opponents (the results of the fighting around Guadalcanal suggest that they were inferior to the US Navy's battleships)
I mention it in the armour section - that they were lightly armoured compared to later vessels - but I can probably expand on that. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can anything on the human side of the ships be added? - eg, details on their habitability (particularly in tropical waters), the make up of their crew, etc - the article is rather 'dry' at present.
Other than crew numbers, none of my sources have anything on the human side of the ships. They're mostly mentioned in the context of their actions from a military POV. Cam (Chat) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit surprised that none of the many specialist works about the IJN have been consulted when developing this article, though that's more of an issue for a FAC than this ACR given that the current references are perfectly adequate. Nick-D (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now addressed. There remains a need to consult specialist books on the IJN though - I skimmed through a copy of Kaigun in a library last weekend and it had some material on background to the decision to build the ships which isn't in the article, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest that whoever trawled through the Conway's entry on Kongō refer to the entry in the same book on HMS Tiger. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • No problems reported with the external links. You have a dab link and a redirect that comes back to the article, these need to be fixed. None of your images have alt text, and while I realize that the relevant policy has shifted I still think that we can add alt text here with no real loss at FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You tell us twice in the lead that they built four ships in the class. Rework the first paragraph and go over the rest of the lead as well.
  • Given that they served during WWI please add the Japanese ships of WWI template, if it exists. I'd like to be able to check on the preceeding classes of Japanese capital ships and I can't do that easily from here. I know that you've sourced the statement about Invincible obsoleting the entire Japanese fleet, but that seems a bit extreme. Dreadnought did that far more thoroughly, IMO while Invincible did that to just to the armored cruisers.
  • Pretty trivial name change by Vickers, I'd delete mention of it personally.
Alright. Deleted. Cam (Chat) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're over-converting. Only the first instance need be converted in the main body. Watch your dashes vs. hyphens. And some of your citations are appearing out of order, as they did on the HMAS Australia article.
  • Jackson's wrong about Tiger being a repeat Lion. Tiger was originally going to be an slightly improved Queen Mary, but that design was heavily modified to include 6-inch guns, revised turret layout and a revised armor scheme. Tiger wasn't even laid down until 18 months after Kongo!
Ay Caramba! The number of disputes that have been had over the Tiger is crazy. The reason she wasn't laid down until 18 months after the Kongo was because they decided to incorporate a few of the design ideas (all forward-aft battery, for example) into her design scheme. I'll see what I can do with this though. Cam (Chat) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She was laid down about 15 months after Queen Mary although the first design studies were submitted in July 1911 (11 months earlier) for ships with super-firing turrets. As far as I can tell she was much more closely related to the Iron Dukes as two of the three designs proposed copied their turret layout with the deletion of the center turret. The third design separated the two rear turrets as the turret was moved between the engine and boiler rooms as that was a more convenient lacation given the new bulkhead arrangement that a rear torpedo room was introduced. Maybe Simon can scan the article on the design history of Tiger for you to judge for yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to the article on the Type 90 floatplane.

More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some of your references are missing place of publication.
    • Swap the positions of the ship histories with the specifications; it makes no sense to discuss the ship histories before talking about their specifications, which should flow naturally right after the design section. I'd also suggest renaming specifications to description as that's what you're doing in this section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing. I based the page format for all of my battleship stuff off of Iowa class battleship and Yamato class battleship, both of which go through the vessels first, and then go into specifications. I'm basing my format on precedence, and no one objected to the order during the Yamato class FAC. Cam (Chat) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's as may be, but it certainly isn't logical to have a design section, switch to ship histories, and then go into a detailed description.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The boiler layout doesn't match what you're saying here. 36 boilers doesn't fit evenly into 8 boiler rooms. Please clarify.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm doing some general copyediting. This might be a good time to mention that I have basically two goals (both difficult, but worth the effort) for FAC-bound articles: preserving as much of your own "voice" as I can without risking the wrath of the FAC reviewers and the puzzlement of general-interest readers, and staying out of the line of fire of the conflicts that are bound to arise when knowledgeable editors care about the finished product. That second goal means that even if I think something could possibly be reworded, I'm likely not to fiddle with it if I'm sensing there's a judgment call on a matter of substance on which different WP:SHIPS editors might disagree, unless IMO we're constrained by MOS and/or FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahoy, newb question here about navy lists: "She was removed from the Navy List on 20 January 1945". Does it really matter what day she's removed from the roster when she's lying at the bottom of the ocean? Isn't it pretty much over when she's sunk? - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the exact details, but I believe it has to do with legal issues, primarily. Although I would say the date of removal is notable. - The Bushranger (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I've always wondered why they don't backdate the stricken date to the date of loss.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd presume because the ship is "still on the books" until the stricken date. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally it is due to secrecy, the British Admiralty kept the loss of HMS Barham (04) secret for months. -MBK004 04:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hiei was sunk northwest of Savo Island on the evening of 13 November by Japanese destroyers." Scuttled, or friendly fire? - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a scuttling - both sides would 'finish off' crippled and unsalvagable ships to avoid their potentially falling into enemy hands. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • fitting out vs. fitting-out: that page title uses a hyphen, so if you use a hyphen, you've got an argument to fall back on if challenged at FAC. OTOH, there are fewer and fewer hyphens these days in good writing, and it's likely that it's fine either way. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the dilemma that leads to writing (without quotes) "Fast Battleship", but capitals aren't an acceptable answer at FAC per WP:MOS#Capital letters. Something else will have to alert the reader that we're not talking about just a fast battleship. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Perhaps italics or something? Cam (Chat) 02:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Italics doesn't feel right either, I'll poke around in other articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer we link stowage, but that article is a stubby-stub and might be in danger of disappearing; should we link to the glossary instead? - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glossary probably. Cam (Chat) 02:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just offering this as a "peek behind the curtain" of the life of a copyeditor. Most writers have a great feel for what looks right to them but not so much for what looks right to everyone. One "trick" that copyeditors use (including on Wikipedia) is to ask for consistency. A writer might not follow that "5 in turret" will make some readers wonder "5 of what in a turret?", but usually you can get writers to buy into the idea that it just makes more work for everyone if we make up different rules on the fly, that consistency makes it easier for everyone to learn how it's done. Learning a handy set of rules and making edits per those rules generally makes for a more collegial relationship than making the kind of snarky comment I just made. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I know that a lot of military historians write "the Kongōs", but per WP:JARGON (a page that was recently redirected ... grrr, it was handy), jargon that's rarely used outside of a specialty field just isn't suitable for a general readership. Not one reader in a hundred would guess that most of the "the Kongōs" don't have "Kongō" anywhere in their name. I understand that it gets really tedious to repeat "blah blah class ships", but you don't have to keep repeating that. In articles like these, we expect the readers to either know the acronyms and definitions already or to read from top to bottom, otherwise they won't know what for instance "IJN" means. By the middle of the article, readers ought to know what we mean by "these four ships". - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have a little more confidence in the average reader being able to figure that out. But "the Kongo class" would seem to me to be a reasonable middle ground between the two examples you gave. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of military articles, and even in most military articles, I'm drawing a blank on this usage. "The Sputniks" means, to most readers, Sputnik 1 through Sputnik 25; if another satellite was designed and ordered at the same time, but called something else, most readers would say that that's not a Sputnik. We say "the space shuttles", not "the Enterprises". Even if half the readers of this article understand what that means, it's still kind of the point of copyediting to help the writer reach a wider audience. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's because the space shuttles aren't ships. Ships, with very few exceptions (for instance, the MEKO types), are grouped in classes with the class name being (as a rule) that of the first ship of the class - the Holiday class cruise ship provides a non-military example; while Nimitz class aircraft carrier provides a (different than Kongo) military one. When referring to a specific ship as being part of a group of similar ships, the useage is always "__________, a _________ class ________", and as a group, the "ships of the _______ class" or "the _________s". - The Bushranger (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see I'm not being clear ... if you put this in the first section, and then use the term throughout the article, then we're fine:

The Kongōs (meaning "the ships of the Kongo class") ...

Some reviewers may object on various theories, but we've got defenses to those theories, I think. Or they may not ... it's kind of random, especially on articles that have already gone through an extensive review like this one. But if you use language only used in reference to ships and don't explain the language, then not only can I not defend that on style grounds, I can't even defend it on policy grounds. Per WP:NOT, "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text." - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other issue ... the ship FAs I've read have all used "class" rather than "the Xs" consistently, and WP:SHIPNAME doesn't mention the "the Xs" usage in the section on classes. What I don't recommend is trying to do this in one or two FACs without making a change to WP:SHIPNAME, lining up support, and doing it in a bunch of FACs. I guess my advice is: feel free to champion any language you want, but line up support and pick your battles. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that "the (class name)s" is something that would require assumption that the reader is well versed in ships to understand, seeing as I knew what that meant when I was 8 years old. But if WP:SHIPNAME calls for it to be done differently, then I have no problem at all with consensus/guidelines. :) - The Bushranger (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the quotes from "up to" in: "and carried up to 118 of them in varying configurations". I'm not sure, but I think FAC reviewers (if they think about it) will say: either you believe your sources or you don't. If you don't, don't say it. If you do, don't add scare-quotes. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if the same article should contain the spellings "armour" and "maneuverability". - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British English (i.e. with the U's) should probably be used if possible, as the ships were built in England and Japan was a British ally, if for not other reason. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, so is that the right spelling of "maneuverability"? - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what this means: "Two each were located together, separated from the others by longitudinal bulkheads." - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The boilers were in two per chamber; chambers are separated by bulkheads. My apologies for the convolutedness. Cam (Chat) 02:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what "Haruna was unique in receiving Brown–Curtis turbines." means ... if you want to say that Haruna was the only Japanese ship, or the only ship ever, to be fitted with these turbines, then please say that. If it's the only one of these four ships, I made the change and it's fine now.
Ah. Yep. She was the only one of those four ships to receive Brown-Curtis turbines. Cam (Chat) 02:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's another "Fast Battleship" in the last section; see above.
  • Support per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another general comment for whoever happens to read it, and this is not a big deal. I'm aware that copyeditors tend to get annoyed over time if writers aren't picking up on things the copyeditors are saying and fixing them in future articles. Volunteers, including volunteer copyeditors, like to see that their contributions are making a difference. I suppose I'm no different, but OTOH, I'm not above digging in and doing the work myself. The whole point of copyediting is that human brains are wired to ignore "small things", like punctuation, because ignoring details help with grabbing and storing the meaning of the words ... so most readers and writers tend not to see exactly the things that copyeditors are looking at (until they're forced to slow down and look closely ... which they generally resist), so I can't complain if there's work for me to do on every article. I do appreciate the effort that many of you are making to respond to some of the things other copyeditors and I have said. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Dab links are still present, and alt text has yet to be added. This is problematic to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an idea what's going on with the alt text debates at WT:MOS, but I don't know how you guys feel about alt text in general. I was distressed that we added a FAC requirement of alt text (by adding WP:ALT to the style guidelines) before we had hashed out what was required, and why. I would prefer not to do alt text on my own ship articles and let other people add whatever they think works, just to stay out of that whole mess. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. And ... most of you know this, but ALT was demoted out of the style guidelines a couple of months ago. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'm not inclined to sweat the alt text, but I think that Tom is thinking a bit more long-term.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
disambig fixed. Alt text isn't required. Cam (Chat) 22:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I would feel better to have alt text for images, however I am aware of the discontinuation of this requirement. Still, I believe that it will be reinstated sometime in the future; when that happens, I like to think that our articles will be one step ahead of the rest of the pack. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComment: there's an "awkward wording" and a "clarification needed" tag. Can these be dealt with, please? Otherwise I think the article is fine and believe it meets the A class criteria. I agree with Tom regarding alt text. I understand it is not a requirement at the moment, but as it probably will be requirement again sometime, would it not make sense to add it in now while we are doing the ACR, so that we don't have to come back later and add it later? (This does not affect my support, though). — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

List of battleships of Germany[edit]

Promoted by NativeForeigner 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


This list will eventually tie together all of the German BBs in one big happy FT (though we're still a far ways away from that at the moment). This is basically a repeat of the List of battlecruisers of Germany list I did back in January. The main concern for me is the prose. For instance, is the lead too "wall of text"-y? Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lead does seem a fair bit Wall o' Text. Of course, it is an important subject, but... If there was some way to cut the intro to, I'd say about 2/3 of its present size, I think that would look good. Otherwise, looks great to me. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the ideal length in my opinion is that which you have on the battlecruisers list. That being said, I think if you cut about four sentences that would help tremendously. -MBK004 05:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, this list (and therefore the introduction) is covering nearly 50 ships and a half dozen unfinished designs over the span of 60+ years of naval expansion, the BC list covers 7 ships and 3 unfinished designs over barely more than 25 years. The lead is going to have to be significantly longer than in the BC list by the very nature of the significantly larger topic it's covering.
That being said, I have trimmed down the second and third paragraphs. Does that look any better? Also, would the addition of a second image to the lead make it less of a "wall-o-text?" Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think it's rather better now, and with the extensiveness of the subject matter, agree that not much more trimming could be reasonably done. More images are always good, as long as they don't produce blocks of white space through interference (admittedly, I'm not the best judge of that, having a wider-than normal monitor). - The Bushranger (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my monitor is larger than usual as well. I was hoping to find a picture of at least Scharnhorst and Gneisenau together (or any WWII capital ships together) to fit with the image currently in the lead, but that doesn't seem available, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No problems reported with alt text, dab links, or external links. One nitpick: there seems to be varied instances of "broken up" and "scrapped" appearing in the fate section in the tables, unless there is a notable difference between the two I would suggest picking one of the two terms and sticking with it; otherwise note the difference in the article somewhere. Also, it may be worth noting somewhere that while the generally accepted version of the Bismark has her sunk in action against the British, there are those who say that the battlewagon was scuttled to prevent her from falling into British hands. s TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I believe the scuttling theory is pretty much "on the fringe" (although of course I may be mistaken), so I'd think it would be best as an in-article topic; especially since, either way, the proximate cause of sinking was the British. ;) - The Bushranger (talk)
      • Hence why I said "destroyed", not "sunk" or "scuttled" :p That being said, I believe the opposite is true, Bushranger. There have been a couple of expeditions with ROVs small enough to enter the ship, and both have concluded that shellfire and torpedoes didn't cause enough damage and flooding to sink the ship (for instance, see this NYT article about the Cameron expedition). You are correct, though, that the proximate cause of sinking was the British ships. Not like the Germans were going to just up and sink her for the hell of it :) Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, and as for the "broken up/scrapped" thing, I was just going for some variety of word choice. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article is very good in my opinion and meets the A class criteria. I have only one comment which I feel needs to be addressed, then I will be happy to support:
    • there is some inconsistency in terminology: you use "First World War" in the Nassau class section, but then in other sections including the Brandenburg class and Helgoland class sections you use "World War I". I think you should use World War I, as you use "World War II" not "Second World War", so it would seem to make sense to use the similar term. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed, thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My concern has been addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is probably ready for FLC. -MBK004 08:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

HMAS Australia (1911)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and saberwyn
Promoted. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Saberwyn and I have essentially reworked the article from the ground up. We intend to submit this to FAC if this passes ACR so comments on style, etc. are encouraged.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment - "Moreover, the ship's ventilation system was designed for conditions in Europe, and was inadequate for the climate in and around Australia." -- was this ever fixed during her career? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it wasn't. I'm glad I wasn't on board during her operations around New Guinea! Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've contributed a few paragraphs to this article's redevelopment, so am not neutral enough to vote (though I think that Saberwyn and Sturmvogel have done great work and the article is A class). I will offer some comments though:
    • While the statement that Australia's scuttling was "the only time the Australian military has been affected by a disarmament treaty" is cited to a deeply reliable source, I'm not sure if it's correct. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Australian Army destroyed its stock of landmines after Australia signed the Ottawa Treaty.
      • I'm happy to get rid of the original statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the statement from the lead, and qualified it in the body by adding "until the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning the use of anti-personnel mine."...can we get a cite saying Australia was affected? -- saberwyn 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've cited Australia's signature of the treaty, but that really doesn't fully support the statement that it was the only other time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that both photos of the ship's 'A' turret are needed - the large size of these photos (particularly the first one) causes them to conflict with the infobox on my 24" monitor. I'd suggest using the second photo as it shows 'A' turret, one of the wing turrets and an aircraft and is of surprisingly high resolution
    • The 'Stevens' in 'Stevens claims' should be identified in the body of the article
    • I think that the article should say that the East Asiatic Squadron moved to the east rather than 'westwards'
    • The statement in the lead that "Admiralty overcaution over the German ships' predicted movements and repeated diversions to support the capture of German colonies in New Guinea and Samoa meant that the battlecruiser did not have the opportunity to engage the enemy squadron before their destruction" doesn't appear to be borne out by the article's text. It would seem that Australia was used to support landing operations and was then retained in the western Pacific in case the Germans (whose position was largely unknown) headed for Australia, which was probably their most attractive target. This seems to me to have been a reasonable use of the ship given the limited intelligence on German movements, and the negative slant of the lead should probably be amended (particularly given that the Germans went out of their way to avoid Australia, which indicates that she achieved the main mission for which she was acquired).
      • For the record, I hate, hate, hate writing lead sections. Can someone uninvolved with the article take what's there and turn it into something that accurately reflects the article? -- saberwyn 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about something like, "However, German concerns about Australia's superority over their force led to the decision to steer well clear of the south-west Pacific, resulting in Australia fulfilling her role of defending her namesake continent by her mere presence."? I would suggest something about a fleet in being, but a fleet-in-being of one ship, well... - The Bushranger (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The performance of the battecruisers at Jutland should be noted as this had implications for her post-war service Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strictly speaking, I'm not sure that that was a real issue. Her obsolete 12-inch guns and expense seem to be the primary factors. But don't forget that the UK had a limited tonnage available under the Washington Treaty and Australia was certainly more obsolete than Lion or Princess Royal, both of which were scrapped.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a quick comment re: the treaty bit; the first edition of the Oxford Companion was published in 1995, two years before the Ottawa treaty was signed. Presumably it was missed in the subsequent printing. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • How does the fact that the Indefatigables having a wider arc of fire than the Invincibles make them inferior to Von der Tann? I assume you mean that the Invincibles, which couldn't really fire "over the shoulder" were inferior, not the Indefatigables? It might also be worth spelling out what made the ships inferior to Von der Tann (I know they had much thinner armor and a smaller-caliber secondary battery, but not everyone else does ;)
  • Also, did the fact that the RN had obtained the specifics for Von der Tann before Australia and New Zealand were laid down cause any changes to be made on these ships? If not, then that line needs to go since it's more or less irrelevant.
    • The RN doesn't seem to have made any changes in reaction to Von der Tann for Australia and New Zealand. Their armor was rearranged somewhat and another protected deck was added, but these were based on Lion. I'd still like a better accounting of why the Indefatigable design was chosen rather than the larger and more expensive Lion. My guess is money, but I'd like to see some documentation, if I had my druthers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've clarified this. The issue is that the Indefatigable design wasn't an improvement on the Invincible design, and was known to be outdated by the time work started on Australia. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was under the impression that the lengthening of Indefatigable allowed all four turrets to fire on the broadside, while Invincible was limited to only three turrets. Isn't that a somewhat significant improvement? Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Invincibles were capable of limited cross-deck fire, if the damage to the deck was accepted. The Indefatigables just improved the arcs, but still suffered the damage to deck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all for now, I'll read through more later. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Looks good, but there are a still a few missing ndashes. I changed most of the hyphens but got fatigued YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • according to the Featured article tool, there are a couple of dab links that need fixing: [13];
      • Think all have been caught. -- saberwyn 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • external links all work (no action required);
    • on my screen there is a large amount of whitespace in the Modifications section due to the placement of the image directly below the infobox (might just be me, though);
      • Shifted left, but we now might have some sandwiching between image and infobox on smaller monitors. Revert if problematic. -- saberwyn 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think alt text is required anymore, so no action required with this really, however some images appear to have it in this article, but others don't;
    • not all the refs are in numerical order (don't know if this is a requirement, but it makes it look better in my institutionalised opinion)...An example where they are not ordered is in the North Sea operations section where # 78 comes before #74;
      • That's likely a second, or later, use for #74.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, what Rupert appears to mean is a sentance that ends "... foobar.[78][74]" I've seen bot/script edits around that easily fix this problem, but for the life of me don't know what/where to find/request this. Worse comes to worst, I'll sit down in a few days and try to fix this manually. -- saberwyn 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that's what I mean. Its not a war stoper though, and I certainly wouldn't not support the article because a couple of citations are standing out of place on the parade ground. :-) AustralianRupert (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Acquisition section there is a red link for "Australia Squadron". I am a land lubber, so I don't know, but we currently have an article on Australia Station, are these the same? If so, one could redirect to the other so you have a blue link;
      • They are similar, but not the same. The Australia Station was the term used for Australia and surrounding waters in the context of naval defence from 1859 to at least 1958. The Australia Squadron was a fleet of British warships assigned to patrol this region and defend Australia's maritime borders between 1859 and 1913 (when the arriving RAN took over). -- saberwyn 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Post war section there is a redlink to "Australian Air Corps". I've not heard of this force, is it meant to be Australian Flying Corps (in which case it is the forerunner to the RAAF)?
      • According to the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, the Australian Air Corps was an intermediary step between the Australian Flying Corps (disbanded c. 1919) and the RAAF (formed 1921). -- saberwyn 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seen. Page 59 in my version. Good spot. I wonder if it is worth creating a stub, or if, like Australian Flying Corps, it should just be redirected to RAAF. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've created a redirect to the RAAF article for now. The AAC barely lasted a year so it doesn't justify its own article to the same extent as the AFC, which I will get round to creating one day... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Decomissioning section there is a citation needed tag that needs dealing with relating to the issue with the landmines mentioned above;
      • Is this worth keeping? I honestly don't think that it's all that notable.
    • In the Decomissioning seciton, I think that there is a word missing in this sentence: "The battlecruiser had to be made unusable for warlike activities within six months of the treaty's ratification, then disposed of by scuttling: Australia did not have the facilities to break her up for scrap, and the British Empire's share of target ships was taken up Royal Navy vessels" (there should be a "by" in between "taken up" and "Royal Navy vessels");
    • As per above, some of the page ranges in the citations still need endashes added to them, # 122 for instance "Sears, in Stevens, The Royal Australian Navy, pp. 56-7"
      • See reply to YellowMonkey. -- saberwyn 06:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that is it from me. Good work so far with this. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What does everyone think of linking the first HMAS to Glossary of nautical terms#H Glossary of nautical terms#HMAS and adding HMAS to the glossary? WP:LEAD says to "use as few links as possible" in the bolded repetition of the title, but few isn't none, and linking seems like the standard way to solve the problem that some readers will know what it means and some won't. If we use a note, as some articles do to explain the prefix, the reader won't know whether they need to click on the note or not until they actually click on it. If we take a sentence to explain what it means, that's not as "tight" as some FAC reviewers need the lead to be, since readers from that country who are interested in ships will probably already know what it means. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think HMAS would be an unnecessary link, as I believe that not knowing exactly what the acronym stands for is not going to drastically compromise a reader's understanding of the ship's history. -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a personal preference, and one there's not much support for, but maybe you'll agree: I don't like [nb 1] (nota bene), because I try to take the consistent position that anything most of our readers won't understand should be explained, linked or omitted. "note 1" is popular; I prefer [a], [b], etc. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm personally a fan of roman numerals in curved brackets, (i.e. (I), (II), etc), as implemented with {{note}}/{{ref}}. However, this is an experiment with the references group formatting, which has the advantages of automatically 'naming' the footnotes, with the disadvantage that they come in the form of [foo 1], [foo 2], where foo is the text used to define the group. If it gets too problematic, I'll probably go back to manual note/ref. -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Totally agreed, I like roman numerals too, and if there are a lot of notes, doing [a], [b] by hand really gets tiresome. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a slightly related note, I think footnote 2 could probably be incorporated into the text. -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I've integrated it into the text, how does it look? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than make suggestions for the lead, I'm going to make some changes in one edit then revert myself. If you like the changes you can restore them. - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like most, but making some tweaks to keep things clear (i.e., the second collision was after Jutland, and the phrase "fired in anger" is the one used to describe the two 'incidents' in most of the sources I've seen) and attempting to incorporate Nick-D's and The Bushranger's concerns/comments above. What do you think? -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks great. This "anger" thing is the hardest thing to deal with, for me, in military articles: how do we convey that we understand and respect but don't share the sentiments of the time? (in this case, the superstition that the ship could get angry). - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My understanding of the phrase "Fire in anger" is that its a term used to describe a deliberate, non-training, non-exercise use of a weapons system. As such, its less "A bunch of sailors shaking fists at 'those damn people, take that!' while the guns go off", and more "When we fire this, there is a very good chance that those on the receiving end will be hurt and/or killed. This is intentional". Writing up an article on Fire in anger is on my to-do list, if I can find the sources treating it as a concept instead of just using the phrase. -- saberwyn 12:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there links available for at load and at deep load? Don't see them on wp or wikt. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a couple of different 'subtypes' listed at Displacement (ship), but I'm not 100% sure how those terms correspond with those Sturmvogel used (I think, "standard" and "full" respectively, but I'll leave it to the master). -- saberwyn 12:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturmvogel, please use "4-inch guns" instead of "4 in guns", which a lot of readers are going to stumble on. (I've never been a fan of the convert template, but I'm starting to hate it with a passion ... if I could have searched for "4 in guns", it would have taken me seconds to fix this myself.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other definitions that would be helpful (if we don't reword): BVIII*, en echelon, MK II
    • "MK" is abbreviation for the designation Mark...it has been spelled out in the body of the article, but left abbreviated in the infobox. I've replaced en echelon (meaning, I think, offset diagonally) with a description of the turrets' locations. I don't know what BVIII* means, but assume its the designation for the particular turret design. -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: "En Echelon" is indeed the diagonally offset arrangement - and the proper term for the turret arrangement. BVIII* is in fact the Mark designation of the turrets, the "*" indicating a slight improvement over the BVIII model. This link has more detail on them (down at the bottom of the page). - The Bushranger (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More readers will understand "takeoff" than "flying off"; is the second term more precise?
    • Comment: The terminology of the time was "flying off" - in fact, as mentioned in the article, the ramps installed on the turrets were offically "flying-off platforms" (-it might be an idea to change "ramps" to "platforms" in the article, now that I think about it), and (as an aside) quite a few early aircraft carriers had short "flying-off decks" in the bow. ...also I'd hate to be flying anything off of P and Q turrets! - The Bushranger (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I try to take a consistent position that the writing should be easy to read for people living now. If a modern Australian is likely to have heard the term, even if it's a historical term, then that's fine. If they haven't, then I'd usually like to see the term linked, explained, or omitted. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the connection between "the least obsolescent of her class" and the rest of the paragraph it's in.
  • I have no problem with single quotes around 'P', but I think 'Fleet Units' risks the wrath of MOS; see "Double or single" at WP:MOS#Quotation marks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding of quotation marks as used in AusEng is that double (") quotes are used when you're quoting someone, and single (') quotes are used for emphasis or highlighting of a term. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section I linked at MOS was written by a prominent Australian, I believe. There are a lot of good arguments both ways, and I've seen single quotes sneak through at FAC many times, so maybe it will be okay. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prompted by the potential for Japan to enter the war" could use a little more explanation for most readers. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed one instance of Von Spee to von Spee for consistency, but the rule I follow is from AP Stylebook, "foreign names": usually lowercase, but follow individual preferences for how the name is spelled in English: bin Laden, but Van Gogh. I don't know what rule Australian copyeditors follow but I bet it's the same; I don't know if von Spee had a preference. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcs I used had lowercase "von", unless it was the start of a sentance, of course. I must have missed that one. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that a colon can sometimes replace a semicolon, but not in the places you're using them; [for instance, a colon wouldn't work here!] starting in the North Sea operations section, please replace the colons by semicolons, full stops/periods or dashes as appropriate. (Exceptions: the colons are fine before "two for a year, one for eighteen months ..." and "the United Kingdom, the United States of America ...") - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! Complex punctuation... my other weakness! I've had a crack at it, how does it look now? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These duties were so monotonous, one sailor was driven insane." This needs rewording; tedium doesn't actually cause mental illness, and "insanity" in American English at least is meaningless except in a legal sense. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phrasing used by the source, and the lack of context means I'm reluctant to change it. -- saberwyn 21:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm supporting at A-class, and I won't vote at FAC when I'm this involved, but I don't think that will pass FAC (if the reviewers are paying attention). "Insane" isn't in the DSM or ICD, and even if it were, boredom couldn't "drive" you there. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'happy ship' seems too informal, and double quote marks are needed if you keep it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rephrased. How does it look now? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what "paid off into reserve" means. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its BritEng for decommissioned and assigned to a reserve fleet. -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for an excellent article, after the "citation needed" is addressed. I hope you'll consider my comments but this isn't FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To all the questions above: I like everything in the diff of your changes. I asked another guy who's done a lot of copyediting work about "night-time"; we think the hyphen is going to the same early grave as a lot of other hyphens these days, but it's not wrong, either. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Question for the masses: I'm a little interigued by the lead image (which is from the Library of Congress). I expanded it while traying to come up with alt text, and have found something odd... if that's Australia, why is she flying the Union Flag, and not the Australian National Flag at the jackstaff? -- saberwyn 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good point. The State Library of Victoria has a photo of her flying the Australian National Flag on her bow. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although there was a bit of confusion over what flags Australian warships should fly, it was decreed in 1911 that RAN ships would fly the British White Ensign as an ensign, and the Australian flag as the jack (see Australian White Ensign for details). Is there a chance that the ship is another battlecruiser (likely Indefatigable or New Zealand) and the Library of Congress (or a previous holder of that copy, as it was more likely them that wrote 'H.M.A.S. "Australia"' over the bottom left corner of the image) has misidentified it? -- saberwyn 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that this is actually Indefatigable, based on the two spotting tops. Australia and New Zealand had only one, on the foremast. I'll change it out when I get a chance during lunch. I'm also thinking about adding a plan drawing to show the layout of the turrets. What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diagram showing the turrets would be brilliant. Swap it for the 'A' turret image and move that elsewhere? -- saberwyn 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I moved the turret picture down to the next section on modifications. I'm not sure that that's really the best place for it, but maybe we could swap it for the 1913 delivery picture which isn't anything spectacular, although appropriate to that section, if it clutters things up to much. Thematically it would be best in the post-Jutland or postwar sections, but they're already pretty full.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support not sure whats preventing this from being closed but it looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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.

Operation Sandblast[edit]

Nominator(s): Marcd30319 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because USS Triton (SSRN-586) has successfully received an A-Class review and since the core Operation Sandblast was originally part of this USS Triton article and had gone through a previous GA review together as a single article, it is my belief that this Operation Sandblast will meet the same criteria as an A-Class article, and serve as a complement to its parent article on the USS Triton. Therefore, based on my previous experience on the A-Class assessment review of the USS Triton article, I have endeavored to avoid over-linking, I believe that my sourcing to be reliable, there are no disambig links, there are no re-directs, and alt text for all images have been duly incorporated. Thank you and I look forward to our collaboration. Marcd30319 (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments
    • No problems reported with dab links. A number of external links are identified as suspicious, including at least one link reported as dead, please check and advise. One image icon is missing alt text, please add this to the article forthwith.
      • Dead link: The dead link pertained to Presidential Foreign Visits from the the U.S. State Department web site. I was able to located an archive link with the same information, and it has been incorporated into the footnote in question. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alt text: I think the image in question is with the U.S. Navy portal. I will locate and add. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suspicious Link: These may be links in the Triton Memorial section that were also troublesome for the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article. I will investigate this. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I recall correctly, we have a operation template you may consider using for the article, it should allow for a basic summary of the operation, its duration, and other details of this nature. I will not count this suggestion against you should you decide to refrain from using it.
      • If there is an appropriate template, this would be great. Please provide the link and I will grab it. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added Template:Operational plan Infobox. I believe this is the appropriate template that you were referring to. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no links to anything in the initial opening paragraphs, may I suggest adding a few?
      • I wasn't sure about this. I didn't want to over-link. I will revisit this. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are still some short sections in the article, it would be a good idea to see about some consolidation of these sections.
      • I could collapse Mission origins into Mission background, although my intention was to concentrate on the man (Captain Beach) and the ship (Triton) in Mission background. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I remove the five sub-sections in Significant post-1960 naval circumnavigations, although you may lose some thematic clarity.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scientific accomplishments and Vital national interests might be able to be merged, although you may lose some thematic clarity. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mission history : I am hesitant to collaspe any of these sub-sections since each phase of the voyage had its own districtive series of events and themes. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was there any particular reason for choosing sandblast as the codename? The article does not say, but I am curious.
      • Captain Beach was also curious about how the Navy Department came up with the code name of Sandblast for the circumnavigation mission. It was explained to him that taking his ship around the world submerged would "take a lot of sand" on the crew's part to be successful. Also, Sandblast would serve as Beach's personal code name. As the captain noted: ""Most beaches are full of sand, I was informed." See Captain Beach's account, p. 44. This seemed rather challenging to capture. At least with Operation Sunshine, there was a certain perverse logic in using that as the code name for the first submerged voyage under the North Pole. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, the quotes in the article could be trimmed even further, but I am going to wait and see what others think about the presence of the quotes before I decide whether or not to make an issue out of this. As a practical matter, I can understand the importance of the quotes to the article, hence my decision for a second opinion on the matter. Note that this comments is limited to the presence of the block quotes in the article only.
      • I will certainly like to hear back about this. I tried to keep the quotes to a minimum, but this is a highly personal story for all involved, and I also wanted to use the boxed quote for each section to set the appropriate tone for that section.
    • How do you extract oxygen from seawater? The article doesn't say, but I am curious.
      • Triton expelled its foul air through the air induction mast (snorkel) and pumped in fresh air through the snorkel which would replenish its onboard oxygen flasks. Regarding submarine extracting oxygen from seawater, I never did any work in this area while I was employed at General Dynamics Electric Boat, but it may be some form of electrolysis. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the SSBN's making use of the Polaris missile have a name? I suspect these are probably George Washington or Ethan Allen boats, but a specific sub class mention would be nice.
      • The SSBN class that were coming on line at the time of the circumnavigation (1960) would be the George Washington class although I believe several units of the Ethan Allen class had been authorized, too. I will look into this, and make the appropriate corrections. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prior to the awarding of the PUC to Triton, which other boat received the PUC for peacetime ops?
      • The first peacetime PUC was awarded the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) for completing the first submerged cross under the North ole in 1958 (Operation Sunshine). There is a new book on this mission, The Ice Diaries, by the late Captain William R. Anderson, on this mission. The ship that was awarded the most PUCs was the nuclear-powered special ops submarine USS Parche (SSN-683) with a total of nine! Marcd30319 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I remembered that Parche had the most PUCs, I read that in the book Blind Man's Bluff if I recall correctly. Wow, what we did in the days of the Cold War. Anyway, my final suggest to you would be to work in a mention of USS Nautilus (SSN-571) receiving the first peacetime PUC. Other than that, this looks like an A-class article. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mention this as a comment since it is a related article and included under See Also - is the List_of_USS_Triton_submerged_circumnavigation_crew pertinent. Are all notable crew already mentioned in the main article?GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crew list: I included this see also because the entire crew is authorized to wear the Presidential Unit Citation, and it seemed appropriate to link this. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your reasoning there even if I don't like the crew list - I will deal with my issues with the crew list through that article GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Significant post-1960 naval circumnavigations: My intent was to show other naval circumnavigations, not just submerged ones. By that criteria, only the Soviet entry would be apropos. The 2003 around the world voyage by the Chinese PLA Navy showed the growing Chinese naval activity on the world stage and enhanced ts prestige. Ditto the Indian and Australian naval circumnavigations around the world. The UNITAS exercises promoted regional goodwill while circumnavigating South America. Ditto the PLAN's 1997 circumnavigation of the Pacific. I spent a considerable amount of time researching this. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would belong under topics relating to naval power - which is why I deleted those entries.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quotations. You've got centred quotes in boxes, centured quotes without boxes, italicised quotes, non-italicised quotes, and one quote on the left side in large quote (") marks. I think the formatting of the various quotations in the article should be standardised (unless there is some method to the madness I've missed in my quick glance at the article). -- saberwyn 23:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Centered quotes in boxes: These are used to introduce each main section and set the tone therein. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Centured quotes without boxes: Quotes from Captain Beach's book, the published log book, or Captain Beach's preface to Dr. Weybrew's book. Essentially, anything that has been published.
    • Italicised quotes: Used for official or institutional citation (i.e., Presidential Unitation Citatio, Legion of Honor, and honorary Sc.D). Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MoS says italics in quotes only where present in originalGraemeLeggett (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, an excellent point and I will do do. Also, I am committed to not allow this to get messy.Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One quote on the left side in large quote (") marsks: Added to provide visual balance since that sub-section {Across the Pacific) had only one image. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Request: TonStar81, is there a way of sectioning off comments so they can be addressed on a more individualized way? Otherwise, we are going to generate an ever-expanding laundry list of comments and responses that will make it increasingly difficult to address outstanding issues or come to a common consensus. Also, it will make it easier to type responses since the frame jumps as I type, and I have difficulty keeping track of my responses. I am sure other are experiencing this, too. Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Marc, we frown upon using section headers in ACRs unlike our peer reviews. We could encourage editors to use {{collapse}} when their concerns have been addressed which would help. -MBK004 00:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would the problem be, as long as they are 4th-level (====) headers? This is really confusing. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we copied our ACR list from the FAC example, so our ACRs - including this one - are listed in the same way that FACs are on a project review page. Adding the headers to the ACRs makes a long page even longer and can disrupt parts of the reviewing operations here and there, which is why we do not permit the headers at the ACR level. The solution here, as it is at FAC, is to use the boxes to hide the addressed comments. Try not to look at this as a hinderence, instead look at it from the perspective that anything worth having is worth working for. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It's a good thing this article isn't overlinked because I'm sure that frozen food, coffee and potato are extremely important to the reader to help them further understand a naval submarine concept. --Brad (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Round 2 Review Comments
I have endeavored to capture the following issues:

  • Dead link: The dead link pertained to Presidential Foreign Visits from the the U.S. State Department web site. I was able to located an archive link with the same information, and it has been incorporated into the footnote in question. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text: Descriptive alt text added to the U.S. Navy portal. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspicious Links: I swapped out the text and links to Triton Memorial section with their opposite number on the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article. I will test to see if that corrects this problem. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation template: Is the operational plan template appropriate for a non-conflict military operataion such as Operation Sandblast? Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added Template:Operational plan Infobox. I believe this is the appropriate template that you were referring to. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki-links in the initial opening paragraphs: Done. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sectional Reduction: Eliminated sub-sections in Mission overview and Mission accomplishments. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SSBN class: Link to George Washington class submarine added. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crew list: I have deleted the see also link to this article while retaining it in the USS Triton category listing. Please let me know what can be done to address your concerns while retaining it. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant post-1960 naval circumnavigations: After sleeping on this, I support this edit. The PLAN missions are captured elsewhere, and the INS Tarangini article addresses its around-the-world voyage. My long-range plans includes developing an article on Operation Northern Trident 2009 and expanding the UNITAS article. I won't split semantical hairs over what is or isn't naval power. I do think that giving coverage to the 1966 Soviet submarine around-the-world voyage is an important and appropriate addition. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes: I eliminated italics from the quotes and I deleted the free-floating quote from Across the Pacific. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Code-name origins: TomStar81's suggestion is a good one, and I am incorporating it into the article under Mission overview. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant post-1960 naval circumnavigations: Changed to Significant circumnavigations by nuclear-powered ships and expanded. Marcd30319 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it is directly related to Op Sandblast (ie submarine activities), the section should be more concise. the list of ports visited is excessive, the ships officers are not relevant within the section either especially as there is an article on the USN activity. As for the Soviet subs, that is more relevant though again excessive detail and a strange bunching of refs at the end of the paragraph.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this section be re-branded 1966 Soviet submarine global circumnavigation and fold the rest of this section into Operation Sea Orbit.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round 3 Review Comments
What is the current status of this review, and what outstanding issues remain to be resolved? Marcd30319 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I see nothing that should prevent this article from being an A-Class article in my opinion. -MBK004 06:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Looks like a very good article in my opinion. I just have a couple of very minor points. I am supporting because everything else looks fine to, but I request that you fix or consider fixing these before taking to FAC.
    • the lead looks like it is five paragraphs, but I think that there is a requirement for it to be no more than four paragraphs;
    • According to the cite error tool, this ref might need to be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS: "First Submerged Circumnavigation 1960, p. B-5.", can you please check?
    • you appear to have spaced emdashes, but per WP:DASH they should be unspaced. For instance in the "Mission history — Around the world submerged 1960" section header and in the block quote;
    • in relation to the comment about emdashes, in the Destination: Cape Horn section you use spaced endashes (sentence beginning "On 3 March..."). Consistency is required with the dashes, either use all spaced endashes, or all unspaced emdashes, please;
    • in the Destination:Cape Horn section you use the contraction "didn't", could you please replace the contraction with the full word as the contraction makes it sound a little unencyclopedic in my opinion.

Anyway that is it from me. Good work. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2010 (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.
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.

SMS Helgoland[edit]

Promoted Woody (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another day, another German battleship, eh? That and we can't let the bloody birdfarms get ahead, can we? But seriously, I wrote this article over the past couple of months, and it passed GA a few days ago. It incorporates a good amount of detail from Seaman Richard Stumpf's diary, a sailor who served aboard the ship during the war. I look forward to all comments that help me prepare this article for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Conversions needed for displacement in the infobox
  • Be sure to use the adjectival form (with the hyphen) for 12-inch, etc.
  • Capitalize and link Kiel Canal.
  • What's a flak gun?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything is done except for the 12-inch. Do you want me or Parsec to go through and change all the "12 in" to "12-inch"? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've got all of these. However, the convert template apparently cannot handle the "abbr=on" and "adj=on" parameters at the same time, so I've removed most of them. Thanks for helping out, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So I've been told here by Tony that when the units are abbreviated, we don't use hyphens for adjectives. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment - another source is needed for "According to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, all four Helgoland-class battleships were disarmed and surrendered as prizes of war to the Allies as replacements for the ships scuttled in Scapa Flow" -- the treaty says that this was supposed to happen, but another source needs to confirm that it did, indeed, occur. (note that I am not disputing this, just pointing it out) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing that out. I've added a ref to confirm that they were in fact handed over. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, and if you'd prefer, I can just make edits and you can revert at will. Be aware that my FAC experience with ships is limited, and I'm not here to "make waves"; if you guys like to do things a certain way at FAC, that's fine. My goal is to give a broader perspective that may or may not be helpful.

Added later: I'm aware that reviewing and reviewers don't always have a positive impact on the writing process, and I don't want to be part of the problem, so I'd prefer to only do pre-FAC reviews when the editors say they have some interest in FAC, as is the case for this article. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't German Imperial Navy be more accessible to an English-speaking audience in the first sentence than Kaiserliche Marine? The German term could be introduced below the introduction, I think. [Later addition ... I'm only getting about 15K ghits on "Kaiserliche Marine" when I restrict to English sources, so I believe the FAC reviewers will want to see German Imperial Navy first. 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)]
  • Most readers are interested in who/what/where/when before they're interested in design improvements, so I would move the second sentence down, "Helgoland's design represented ...". Since this is headed to FAC, a third paragraph would be customary in the introduction; perhaps that could start its own paragraph. (More to come) - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC) [Later addition ... my thinking here may reflect a journalistic bias not shared by FAC reviewers. I'm not positive. 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]
  • Although it's unusual to link all or part of the title in the first sentence, I think it would be both clearer and less intrusive to link SMS than to have a note that the reader has to click on. I've bolded SMS in the lead at Kaiserliche Marine so that that link will serve well as a quick definition of the acronym. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a redirect from Military History Museum of the Bundeswehr to Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr, and I'd recommend using the former instead of the latter in the lead. My guess is that English sources tend to say "Kaiser-class" rather than "Emperor-class", so it makes sense to keep the German, but names of museums are probably going to be translated in most English-language sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to remove some of the commas; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General rule on "tightness": don't worry about deleting individual words just to make it shorter, but if very little meaning is lost when you get rid of a string of words, then rewrite it. Example: I changed (paraphrasing) "Fitting-out, consisting of A, B, and other things, ..." to "Fitting-out, including A and B, ..."
  • Capitalization was probably wrong in the target article title Jade Estuary, now fixed. 19:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Some reviewers prefer all sections to have at least some text (the problem here is SMS_Helgoland#Actions in the North Sea), but it seems clear enough to me, and there's no harm in leaving it alone unless/until someone complains. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure reviewers are going to ask that you be consistent with the initial "0" in "At 06:20", "At 5:00", etc. Some may ask you to link the first occurrence to 24-hour clock, although I don't think it's necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a ton Dank, your review is really helpful. I've had some personal stuff in real life, so it might take me a bit to get to these, but everything looks good so far. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's great. Okay for me to make the edits myself? You're welcome to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay done, and I'll make edits as I go. This article's intro says "Helgoland's design represented an incremental improvement over the preceding Nassau class ...", but Helgoland class battleship's intro says "The design was a significant improvement over the previous Nassau-class ships; they had a larger main battery—30.5 cm (12.0 in) main guns instead of the 28 cm (11 in) weapons mounted on the earlier vessels—and an improved propulsion system." These statements don't seem to me to sync up. If "significant" is a good description, then that sentence would work well in the intro of this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both "Admiral Ingenohl" and "von Ingenohl" are fine, "von" is just an honorific, but we're less likely to encounter resistance if you're consistent about whether to include the "von". I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. People keep using the sclass template, I guess to help them get the orthography right, except that the template generally gets it wrong: it's Queen-Elizabeth-class battleships, not Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Would it be simpler to encourage people to stop using the template or fix it? I'm not a template guy. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that is where you are wrong, there is no - in between Queen and Elizabeth in that ship's name. The template is actually correct and you won't get people to stop using the template. -MBK004 18:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's see what response we get at WT:MOS#Hyphen question, since this editor wants this article to pass FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Friedman (U.S. Battleships) doesn't have this orthography question to deal with, btw, he consistently writes "the North Carolinas" for "the North-Carolina-class battleships". I expect most people who might respond at MOS will want to follow Chicago (AP Stylebook is silent on this hyphen question, on pp. 359-360) and won't care much what battleship authors like ... but I could be wrong, I don't care much, and I'll happily do whatever gets it through FAC, if that's where the article editors are headed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, although there were several opinions, in the end we didn't have any objection to MBK's {{sclass|Queen Elizabeth|battleship|2}}, which produces Queen Elizabeth-class battleship. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you put the metric units first and sometimes second; it doesn't bother me but you may be asked to be consistent at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I usually put metric first since it's a German-topic article and they use metric. In some cases, like the 15 inch shell from either Barham or Valiant, their guns were measured in inches, not centimeters (it'd actually be 38.1 cm, but this is needlessly accurate) so I reversed the order. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • FAC reviewers may want more consistency on this than you've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, we should use the official measurements, regardless of inconsistency or FAC reviewer preferences. If a ship has 15-inch (38 cm) and 88 mm (3.5-inch) guns (random numbers) they should be written as such, even though they are not consistent. Accuracy trumps consistency at this point, I feel. It's inaccurate to say the 'Helgoland' had 305 mm guns, because they were, in fact 12-inch guns.Cromdog (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, no, they were 30.5 cm, which comes out to 12.007874... inches. 12 inches comes out to 30.48 cm, so yes there is a valid reason for using specific figures first. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I totally agree, both that we should use what the guns were commonly called (whether 12-inch guns or 30.5 cm guns or whatever), and that if a FAC reviewer said we needed to change all these to metric, we should push back rather than acceding. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • tons of coal ... metric tons? - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you referring to the 1250 mentioned in Stumpf's diary? He doesn't say specifically, but I'd be willing to bet it was metric tons. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Tons" is a word I don't use alone since it can mean 3 different things. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you think it would be more prudent to say "over 1,000 tons" since we can't say for certain which ton we're talking about, and in this case we wouldn't be as specific? Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's best to follow MOSNUM if you're headed for FAC, and MOSNUM says: "Use long ton or short ton and not just ton; these units have no symbol or abbreviation and are always spelled out. The tonne, 1000 kilograms, is officially known as the metric ton in the US. Whichever name is used, the symbol is t." So "tons" is out; "over 1,000 tonnes" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the red flag flew above every capital ship" ... there's nothing in the article red flag that tells me what this means, although I can guess it was the flag of the mutineers. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was just the generic "red flag" of socialist revolutionaries. Is there not a mention of the socialist tilt of the mutineers? I thought I had included that, but then I am sometimes forgetful with these things...Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One image is in need of alt text, otherwise this looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support: I believe that this article meets the required criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but please fix the broken link in the main infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unable to see any issues remaining to handle. I'll Support it.Cromdog (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Promoted --Ranger Steve (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it recently passed GAR and I believe that it meets the A-class criteria. If there are infelicities in my writing please take the effort to point them out as I don't find comments to do a general copyedit particularly useful. Keep in mind that I'm aiming this at FAC afterwards.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No problems reported with dab links or alt text. One external link is reported as suspicious please check and advise.
      • It's good.
    • Can we get two paragraphs in the intro please? Two (or three or more than that) helps to promote the professionalism of the article, IMO.
      • I think the best thing to do is to add some stuff about the prolonged development history and maybe expand the bit about the construction difficulties. However, I'm not sure how to add the development stuff because it all flows rather nicely now. I suppose I could add a separate paragraph after the one, but that would disrupt the chronological progression. Any suggestions?
    • The armor section does not note if the battleships were to employ the all or nothing armor scheme. Can you find anything to this effect? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really think so, based on what I little I know about it, but McLaughlin didn't note it specifically.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This article is in excellent shape, but I think that it needs a little more work to reach A class:
    • The introduction is a bit short
      • See my comments above. Do you have any concrete suggestions as to what I should do to expand it?
    • The 'Design and development' section should start with providing some context about the Soviet Navy at the time work began on planning for these ships and why it was decided to try to build such ambitious vessels
      • Done
    • The sentence "A revised design was approved on 28 February 1938 and the first ship was to be laid down on 15 July, but even this was incomplete and would be revised later." is unclear - was the ship or the design incomplete and revised? Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now addressed. I think that more background on the state of the Soviet Navy and rationale for these ships should be added before it goes to a FAC through. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that there's really that much to tell about the decision itself. The Soviet Navy was in bad shape and had only completed 3 half-built Tsarist cruisers and several of the Project 2 escort ships since the end of the Civil War 15 years earlier. The Kirov-class cruisers were under construction, with Italian help, but most of the capital ship design and construction expertise was lost and had to be relearned on the fly. And nobody seemed to make provision for time to design and build the guns and machinery. The former often took longer than the actual design and construction of the rest of the ship. Similarly the Tsarist knowledge base for thick armor plates, large guns and precision machinery had largely fled the country. And the Communist emphasis on quotas over quality further compounded their problems. I'll have to reread McLaughlin about the actual decision to build these puppies, but it basically appears to be something like: "Hey the kid next door has some cool toys, I better get some myself" Stalin and the Navy wanted something to counter the German ships and trivial matters like a decayed industrial base thwart their desires.
  • Comment:
    • the format of the References section is a little inconsistent. # 1 provides the full bibliographic details, but the others use short citation style (for consistency I'd suggest making Reference # 1 "Westwood, p. 202" and moving the full details to the Bibliography section. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first citation is the only citation for that reference. Solo citations are always given in full, only multiple citations are given in the short format with full info in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria. I couldn't find any issues to pick fault with. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • Without going into a detailed review of the article just yet, I'm going to make a concrete suggestion for expanding the lead. First off, to me it's good as it stands because it gives a succinct, logical history of the class in one fell swoop, and I don't want to spoil that flow. However, I agree with Nick and Tom that more detail, in say two paras, is appropriate for A-Class. I think you could split the current para before "One ship, Sovetsky Belorussiya...", and then commence a second para going into a bit of detail on design, characteristics, and construction (maybe just a sentence apiece for those three aspects, the last perhaps mentioning at least the first ship in the class that was built) before finishing (still in the second para) with "One ship, Sovetsky Belorussiya..." and after. See how you go...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've adopted Ian's suggestion of splitting the lead, although I ended up going in a slightly different direction. How does it work now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm happy with the new second para, my only remaining suggestion for the lead would be (as mentioned earlier) to briefly mention construction history in the third para, at least the first ship, as a) the third para's pretty minscule and b) the bit on the cancelled ship kind of pops out of nowhere, for me at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completed review to the end; apart from what I changed in a quick copyedit I think it reads well, is detailed and properly cited, and appropriately illustrated with a fair-use design view. So well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved one sentence out of the first paragraph to lead off the third paragraph since it deals with construction issues. However, I'm not sure if it works properly in conjunction with the earlier sentence on the armor plate manufacturing issues. What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for ACR Comment This looks like good coverage (comprehensive) of the subject. Everything I wanted to know about soviet battleships (which wasn't a lot to start with, but now I've been instructed). I found no lapses of explanation, etc., but the prose could use a good copy edit—it's got a lot of Sturmvogelisms—before you take it to FA. I'll volunteer for that assignment, if you'd like. That would be sometime in the next 10 days. I'm trying to get finish a dissertation chapter. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogelisms?–<snicker>. My dear, are you saying that I have, ahem, a "distinctive" voice? I do believe that you're flattering me! A good copyedit would be appreciated or you can just point them out for me to fix. Either way would be fine; I just don't want to exceed the allotted time for this ACR which is in a week or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure. I'll give it a go later, after I get some of my dissertation done, but I see nothing that should prevent ACR at this point. I'll leave some stuff on the talk page for you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "possibly chosen as being as large a violation as they thought they could get away with, with an armament of nine 406-millimeter": who's making that interpretation, and why? - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's McLaughlin, presumably because he doesn't know why the ship's size changed yet again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he had some evidence or he was repeating some kind of accepted wisdom, that can be fine with the right attribution. If he's speculating, you'll be better off at FAC without that part. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.
  • "experimental basin": I'm not sure what that means. Only 1 other Wikipedia article has the phrase, and a gsearch isn't pulling up anything consistent enough for me to get a handle on it. If it's not important, we could leave it out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it ship model basin.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that works.
  • "splinter deck": a lot of battleship articles use that and "splinter belt" but I can't find any of them that define it. From Garzke & Dulin and Friedman, my sense is that the splinter deck was generally a much thinner deck (from roughly 0.6 to 2 inches thick) designed to protect most of the crew from shards of bombs or shells or debris from the ship. What's the best way to communicate this to the reader? Should we link to a stub on splinter deck, create an entry at Wiktionary, or give a quick description whenever we use the phrase? - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the text to cover its function, see how it reads. At some point we're going to have to start articles on these sorts of things, but my excuse is that I'm waiting to rescue the rest of my library from storage before I start elaborating them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trials with the motor launches": motor launches? I don't see how those would provide accurate information on the proposed ship's speed. Are we talking about a larger hull plus motors here? - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, these were essentially motor boats with the ship's hull form. Used because the smaller models can have problems with scaling effects. The article references a specific British class of military motor boats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trim" can mean "the fore-and-aft angle of the vessel to the water" (wikt:trim) and "ballast" (in Dynamic trimming, "optimize trim at all times") and something like "total drag" (first sentence of Dynamic trimming). Which of those is meant by these two occurrences of the word here? "After the weights were calculated the ship showed a substantial trim by the stern; the two 100 mm turrets mounted on the quarterdeck were deleted and the height of the armor belt abreast the rear turret was lowered in a effort to reduce the trim." - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is another term that needs a separate article as most everything listed above applies to one degree or another. In this case the wikt definition is the one meant here as there was too much weight towards the stern. This is bad because it increases overall drag, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what "The hull form was very full" means ... full of something? wide? - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think full-bodied; that's probably a better term anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any synonym of "oversized" would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "after end" be "aft end"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, after is a preposition. Aft is an adjective.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite following this: "...or with three torpedo hits and the unarmored above-water side destroyed." - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really not sure how to rephrase this. The ship was supposed to remain afloat after suffering, case 1) the destruction of the above-water, unarmored side of the ship plus three torpedo hits, or, case 2) five adjacent compartments were flooded. Should I move around some of the clauses? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting which side of the ship we're talking about, but if it's clear to other reviewers, I'm fine with the language. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the Soviet leadership preferred to ignore the industrial difficulties when making their plans." I'm not disputing that, but you don't support that broad conclusion; that would be a separate article. (You could attribute it to someone, maybe.) Maybe something like: "... appeared to ignore the difficulties encountered in the construction of the Kirov class when ordering 14 much more ambitious ships." - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Support. An excellent article. It would be nice if there were more pictures, however, I understand that there are likely none available. – Joe N 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

USS Triton (SSRN-586)[edit]

Nominator(s): Marcd30319 (talk)


I have nominated this article for A-Class review because it has been certified as a GA article since 2006, and I have spent a great deal of time augmenting this value. Also, since Triton executed the first submerged circumnavigation of the world in 1960, some 50 years ago this year, I believe recognition of the subject of this arrticle to be both timely and appropriate.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Two dab links and one redirect are present in the article, these need to be located and if at all possible removed from the article. A disturbing number of websites are highlighted for issues related to access, these need to be located and fixed, removed, or acceptably substituted. In addition, a number of the websites listed do not appear to be reliable sources (blogspot for example), these links and there accompanying information may need to be removed from the article. Approximately 35 images are listed as being in need of alt text, please add this text to the images forthwith.
    • Shorten your introduction please, everything in the introduction is going to be brought up in the article body in greater detail, hence we do not need it all up front. My recommendation is to cut out all the extended information on the circumnavigation from the article intro save for one or two lines, and I'd recommend removing the quote from the intro as well.
    • I was under the impression that COMSUBLANT had no flagship, can you cite this information please?
    • There seems to be enough information in the design section to split out into a class article, given that the article is currently 136 kbs doing this may help the article stay WP:SIZE compliant by removing information more relevant to the class out from a page discussing the sub alone. Just something to think about.
      • Hold up Tom, this was an individual ship; I thought we didn't use them? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm looking at the 136-kb page size as possible grounds for an IAR on this article, although like all things on the wiki I'm playing this by ear and as the article gets edited this point may become null and void. If the Operation Sandblast material is moved to its own article then this will definitely be struck, otherwise I'll update this comment and the others as they are addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment struck, Operation Sandblast has reduced the size to a more manageable level. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are too many quotes in the article, can some of these be trimmed? Also, as a rule, articles shouldn't have galleries for their images if a link to the commons repository is provided, please see about trimming some images from the article please.
      • Quotes: Many of the quotes have been transferred to the Operation Sandblast article. There are now one (Aution) quote in the Commissioning section, three (DANFS, Beach, Dibner) in the Shakedown cruise section , and one (Rickover) in the Legacy section, four quotes, plus two citation for Triton's PUC and NUC. I think this is a reasonable total.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Galleries: I am open to discussion, but would it not be preferable to show the items being described by the text? Please advise.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Also, the alt= has screwed up the caption for the gallery.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed with deletion of Ship's crest, insignia, bell, and radio callsign section
    • There seem to be little bits of unneeded trivia all over the article, could you see about trimming these out of the article? For example, in the keel laying section, you've got "Although this underwater towing capability was never used, it later became a key plot element in Beach's 1978 novel Cold is the Sea." I fail to see why we need to know this, its trivia and could be removed without compromising the article's integrity.
      • I moved the Cold is the Sea text to the Cultural references section while adding a note about Consideration of under-the-ice operation by Triton per Largess and Horwitz.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire Ship's Crest, Ship's Insignia, Ship's Bell, and Radio Call Sign section needs to be moved from its current position, its obstructing the flow of the article. Put it at the top of the article in the design section or at the bottom of the page around the legacy section. Alternatively, you may consider simply deleting it.
    • On a similar note, you have way to many sections header with very short section. Section headers are meant to announce big things, not the start of every new paragraph. Eliminate some the extra headers please.
    • You need non breaking spaces between all number-size figures, but I notice that there are spots where this is missing.
    • There are too many instances of bulleted lists, please trim these down.
    • Practically all the information int he circumnavigation section could be reduced to a few paragraphs with the bulk of the information going to create an Operation Sandblast article. This event seems to be a consuming moment for the ship, but IMO it takes away from later operations. We adopted this format for USS Missouri; she got a paragraph for the surrender ceremony in her actual article while an entirely different article discusses the surrender ceremony in greater detail since it was such a highlight of Might Mo's career.
    • What's with the smoking study? I find this part of the article unneeded, and would consider trimming it back or removing it altogether.
    • Specify the year of the U2 incident in the aftermath section please, there were a few incidents and the addition of the year in the link would do much to help people remember which on you are talking about.
    • I recommend removing the commanding officers section and integrating that information into the article body.
      • Incorporated into Subsequent operations section and done.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend deleting the awards and honors section and noting the PUC and NUC in the appropriate areas of the article body.
    • To the best of your ability, remove the See Also section at the bottom of the page, anything worth noting there should be incorporated into the article text.
      • Done. Moved U.S. Navy wiki-portal to External links section.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trim the external links section, per WP:NOT we are not a link farm to other websites. Keep those links that have merit, remove the rest from the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Removed Google Map link of ship since it is undergoing recycling.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article needs a lot of work to reach A-class and Tom has covered the major issues that exist. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination and going to peer review instead. --Brad (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider my nomination withdrawn, and no need for peer review. Not when anyone can go in, change or delete anything they wanr, and not allow the person who has contributed more on a particular article than anyone else the opportunity to discuss or respond. Who care about something like a 50th anniversary around here?Marcd30319 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Added strikethrough per my talk —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Trekphiler is trying to help; not destroy. Was this your first A-class nomination? --Brad (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was. The editor is apparent upset over the SOP for a mainpage appearance, and did not appear to be happy with the idea that other people would edit the article, which has also prompted ownership issues. At this point we haven't heard back from his, but I am loath to close the ACR because the article stands a realistic shot of making it to A and FA-class if the editor is just willing to listen and trim. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shit, I don't like seeing this, I liked Marc. Has anyone sent him an email? If not, please don't; I'll send him one tomorrow. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well written, well illustrated, very comprehensive and well researched article. Due to the somewhat unusual circumstances, I made some typo-fix copyedits while reading through. I sincerely hope Marc can be encouraged to continue collaborating with us as he learns the arcana. Dhatfield (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I just reread your comments and while I agree that this article is somewhat 'unconventional' to the eye of an experienced editor - especially one with your level of nautical experience - I think that this is good enough for A and the remaining issues are appropriate for FA. Dhatfield (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Conversions are needed for displacement and horsepower in the infobox.
    • Done - Conversions are needed for displacement and horsepower in the infobox.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a fairwater housing?
    • fairwater housing — According to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, fairwater refer to the bridge and conning tower on a submarine. Also, according to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, housing iis part of a mast that is below deck, or housing part of a bowsprit that is inside the hull. Therefore, the fairwater housing is where the AN/SPS-26 radar is stowed in Triton's sail structure.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for a separate heightfinder radar is mentioned twice.
    • Triton is the only U.S. Navy radar picket submarine to not need a separate height-finding system because the AN/SPS-26 radar combines this function with a search radar capability in a single unit. This fact was noted in the Design history section and the Combat systems overview section, and this seemed appropriate.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC) In the case of Design history section , mention of the height-finder was appropriate since previous radar pciler submarines had them, and Triton did not because of the AN/SPS-26 radar combined both function into a single unit. Now, in the case of the Combat systems overview section, there was mention of elevation as it pertains to the operation of the AN/SPS-26 radar , and it would be appropriate to mention that Triton's AN/SPS-26 radar didn't need a separate height-finder and therefore, its mention was appropriate and consistent.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recycling should changed to scrapping.

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • @last point, it's called "recycling" by the navy, see Ship-Submarine Recycling Program —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • fairwater housing — According to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, fairwater refer to the bridge and conning tower on a submarine. Also, according to FreeDictionary.com, as a nautical term, housing iis part of a mast that is below deck, or housing part of a bowsprit that is inside the hull. Therefore, the fairwater housing is where the AN/SPS-26 radar is stowed in Triton's sail structure.----
    • Triton is the only U.S. Navy radar picket submarine to not need a separate height-finding system because the AN/SPS-26 radar combines this function with a search radar capability in a single unit. This fact was noted in the Design history section and the Combat systems overview section, and this seemed appropriate.----


Changing to Support enough issues have been addressed for A-class level and Marc has shown a great effort to bring the article inline. I strongly recommend a peer review before this goes to FAC. There should be a sufficient amount of time for peer review and FAC before the main page appearance date. --Brad (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We'll start with the references, What makes the following reliable sources?

Sections
Misc
  • There are problems with uniformity in the article. Beach is referred to in several different manners: "Beach; "Ned Beach" "Captain Beach" etc. You need to find one and stay with it.
    • Ned Beach was not my copy, but another's. My rule of thumb is for each section, the first reference is Captain Edwrad L. Beach, and thereafter it is Captain Beach. If there are two reference in close proximity to each other, then the first reference if Captain Beach and the second is just Beach.
  • Other US Navy ships don't really need their full article title mentioned. Their names are sufficient enough as in this change. But again there is no uniformity in the article; I've seen all sort of versions used.
  • Overlinking is rampant. I saw for example, New London Connecticut linked twice in the same paragraph. --Brad (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overlinking - Abatement program initiated. If there are any additional excess, please identify.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved Brad101 (Talk)
Sources
  • http://donshelton.net/present.htm
  • http://www.vikingassociation.com/squadrons-and-wings.php#vs27
    • This web site is problematic until I can get verification for other sources so I am deleting this information regarding the 1966 ASW exercise from this article.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.dan-online.de/atomschiffe/zoom.aspx?bild=images/ANTI1034.jpg
    • Dead link regardin Antigua and Barbuda commemorative stamp. Will remove.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://web.meganet.net/kman/wjpg3.htm
    • Information based on contemporaneous newletter NSGA Bremerhaven Windjammer which includes information about Triton's port vist to Bremerhaven in late 1960. Please note that this port visit is well sourced.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What this cite needed as a better representation of the source. Essentially you have a published journal online. I improved the citation. --Brad (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://garrygray.tripod.com/ships_history.htm
    • This is the unofficial USS Triton web site. The webmaster is Mr. Garry Gray, and most of the text copy was reviwed by the late Captain Tom B. Thamm, who served as the Triton's auxilary system officer during the circumnavigation and designed of the Triton plaque. In a related project, Captain Edward L. Beach recommended Tom as a technical consultant and having worked with him, I can attest that he is a very exacting, precise, and accurate individual with zero tolerance for BS. He would feel quite at home in this WikiProject. Therefore, as it pertains the Triton and his historical and technical background, I am quite confident that this web site is highly reliable. In regards to this article, this website provided facsimiles of Triton's Preidential Unit Citation and Naval Unit Citation, as well as information regarding Triton's ship's crest, the Triton Plaque, and the Antigua and Barbuda commemorative stamp, ahd the ship's history.Marcd30319 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This source will be a serious issue at FAC. The fact that you're aware of how the site is put together is irrelevant to how the site presents itself. There is nothing on the site that gives sources or how it may have been reviewed by technical experts. Right now the site appears as someones personal little webpage. --Brad (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sections
  • The references section is too deeply nested, difficult to follow and overlinked. See WP:OVERLINK. --Brad (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it is difficult to follow, but I can't think of a solution. A lot of these references are used only once and therefore can't/shouldn't be moved to the bibliography. I don't see the overlinking you see; there aren't a lot of wikilinks in there... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My rule for bibliography has been to only include sources there that have been cited repeatedly. Sources only used once belong in the single citation. The Eisenhower library sources need the citation template for uniformity along with the rest. One bibliography section should suffice without the need to point out where they came from or whether they were secondary etc. --Brad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done — Bibliography section consolidated and a number of reference works reduced to multiple cited sources in article footnotes.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did some further clean up in that section but don't understand why the Largess-Horowitz source is underneath the Gardiner source. --Brad (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Largess-Horowitz article was published in Warship 1993. If there is a better way to do this, please let me know.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Was the Largess-Horowitz article published in a chapter or appendix of the Gardiner book? --Brad (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Many links to youtube
    • Reduced to two Universal newsreels depicting the launch of Triton and Operation Sandblast.Marcd30319 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is what makes a youtube video a reliable source? --Brad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • When it hosts the contemporaneous Universal newsreel of the 1958 launching of the USS Triton, the subject of this Wikipedia article, and the conclusion of Operation Sandblast, the signature operational accomplishment of this warship that transpired in 1060. Seems QED to me.Marcd30319 (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. Youtube links have been moved to External links section.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photos
Citations
  • Instead of pp. 90 - 93 you need endash (on keyboard hold alt and enter 0150, release alt) this gives you pp. 90–93
    • Done.Marcd30319 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done. See this difference for endash. --Brad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That keyboard hold alt and enter 0150, release alt thing didn't exactly work as advertise, so I went to the Dash article, clicked into edit, and captured this: en dash (–). I then manually pasted the en dash (–) into every foot-note that had multiple page citations.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey, randomly found this page while patrolling recent changes. You can insert the endash easily, without the alt-thing. Under the save button, there should be a box, that says: Insert, followed by a bunch of random characters that are blue. The first one is an en-dash. Hope that helps! Brambleclawx 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations need to be closed with a period: pp. 90–93.

comments I just read the article and left some comments, which I managed to erase while saving. Not sure how I did that. Anyway, (1) the short of it is, the lead definitely needs another copy edit for comma faults, etc. (2) There are a lot of confusing sentences such as the one that starts the paragraph with Triton was the only non-Soviet submarine designed with a two-reactor propulsion plant The fact that this sentence alone has four cites made me raise my eyebrows. Does this mean that four different sources said the same thing, or that the information contained in the sentence was compiled from four different sources. (3) There are also a lot of convoluted verb constructions. Examples (not to be considered a limited list): Triton began her sea trial on 27 September 1959, which would transpire over the next five days Sentence beginning: Triton passed her preliminary acceptance trials (also a one sentence paragraph); Because new fuel elements had been procured and were available for installation, Triton's overhaul may have been cancelled in order to pay for repairs to the supercarrier USS Forrestal (CVA-59) which had suffered extensive damage from a massive shipboard fire while engaged in air combat operations in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam War in July 1967.[89] Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) Reworded.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) two-reactor propulsion plant: The four cites involved all of the imformation contained in that sentence regarding the SAR program, the prototypes, GE, AEC, and the Navy. Hope this clarifies.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3) Let's see...
    • Triton began her sea trial... Fixed and clarified.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Triton passed her preliminary acceptance trials Fixed and clarified.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • convoluted verb constructions De-convoluted.Marcd30319 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

60th anniversary of circumnavigation If you want to try to get this featured, you might want to bring it up with the FA guru and/or delegates ahead of time. (btw 2010 minus 1950 = 60 years, doesn't it?) Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the heads-up. BTW - The circumnavigation took place in 1960. Nuclear subamrine did bot become exist until the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) became operational in 1955.Marcd30319 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for A-class. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Qualified Support, pending resolution of the citation needed comment toward the end (cultural references), and the resolution of the above issues. I made some minor prose fixes. Hope that is okay. One was actually rather major...incomplete sentence. The section on the park should probably be brought up to date. Ssomeone who knows ships and is a really good copy editor should go through this once more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way forward[edit]

I am not sure if this is procedurally correct, but in order to move forward the process of this A-List Review for the USS Triton article, I am going break this down into a more structured, finely focused approach.

Toolbox issues
  • External Links: I need assistance regarding the uncategorized redirects (footnotes 109, 110, 111).Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see what the problem is. Look fine to me. --Brad (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig Links: I corrected nuclear deterrence in Design history section & Hanford Site in Triton memorials section.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects: This link was moved to Operation Sandblast and has been removed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • alt text: This has been done, except dor the images associated with Ship’s crest, insignia, bell and radio callsign section. See below.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-breaking: I have not been provided any insight on what this issue is or how to rectify this.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some of the dashes that I could find, and ran a script which does some of it for us. Someone with the full script needs to go through and take care of the others. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources
Content
  • Conversions: I have done the conversion for displacement and horsepower in the infobox.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: I will review the copy and de-links as needed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had done some cleaning in the cultural references section but apparently you inserted a reworked version. But here is an example of overlinking:
    • It's just a sea of blue with links to articles that have little to assist the reader about Triton and is unnecessarily verbose in the links. A cleaner version would look like:
    • Note that it is unnecessary to use [[Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea|''Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea'']] to italicize when ''[[Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea]]'' does the same thing. It's sort of like bloatware in its current condition. The name of the film directors are irrelevant as is [[1961 in film|1961 film]] and [[1966 in film|1966 film]]. The overall article is a lot better now, however. --Brad (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography section: Done, except for question about the Largess-Horowitz article which I have addressed.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uniformity regarding the referencing Captain Edward L. Beach: for each section, the first reference is Captain Edwrad L. Beach, and thereafter it is Captain Beach. If there are two reference in close proximity to each other, then the first reference if Captain Beach and the second is just Beach. And no Ned Beach.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complex sentence structure: I tend to write in compound sentence, but I will endeavor to simply where feasible.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other Issues

I am sure that there will be other issues that I have either overlooked or will arise going forward. Please feel free to start a new thread/section as needed. Thank you all for you help and support.Marcd30319 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking the issues I pointed out above as I have time to get around to them. Largess-Horowitz was fixed with better utilization of the template. You're doing an excellent job cleaning the article up and I'll soon support for A-class. --Brad (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure that the cultural references section complies with WP:MILPOP. -MBK004 02:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a problem with the section. The books have somewhat trivial references to Triton, but there aren't a lot of references to the sub; I'm not sure if it violates the letter of the law, but it is definitely not going against its spirit. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galleries: Removed with deletion of Ship's crest, insignia, bell, and radio callsign section (see also above).
  • Support: I think that the article is of sufficient quality to be listed as A-class. Any concerns I had have been stated above, and the vast majority have been addressed; I'm certain the rest will be done in a reasonable timeframe. -- saberwyn 10:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End game:
Hello! Please list below any remaining issues regarding the article's A-List review that needs to be resolved, addressed or captured so we can put the proverbial fork in and declare these proceedings done. Allow me in advane to thank you all for your attention on this matter. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Now this is an A-class article! Outstanding effort, Marc, outstanding!!!! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

HMAS Sydney (R17)[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): -- saberwyn


With all the focus on battleships and battlecruisers, is been a while since a birdfarm has made an approach to the higher article ratings. To help remedy this, I am nominating the article for the Australian aircraft carrier/troopship HMAS Sydney (R17) for A-class review. Sydney was one of only three conventional aircraft carriers to operate in the Royal Australian Navy, and the only one to see wartime service (Korea as an aircraft carrier, Vietnam as a troop transport).

I believe that the article meets the standard for A-class articles...if not, a few alterations would make it so. It has been through a peer review, although only one editor was able to comment. All comments and constructive feedback are appreciated.

Please note that I prefer to intersperse my replies with your comments to keep ideas together...if you don't want this done to yours, please specify. -- saberwyn 09:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I see two {{cn}}'s, otherwise all references look good. No dablinks or external links problems, and alt text is present. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first "citation needed" is for the statement that Sydney won the 1950 Gloucester Cup: the statement is currently cited, but I want to find something more authoritative than Column 8, a newspaper readers' observations column. The second is for information I can 'prove' (through the use of images such as [14] and [15]) but have been unable to cite so far. There is also a {{clarification needed}} in regards to a "YE", which is listed as part of the ship's sensor suite, but I have no idea what it is. Any advice on how to deal with these would be great. -- saberwyn 06:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per comments below, all three tags have been stripped out. -- saberwyn 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • The infobox is lacking some useful info like ship sponsor and ship power; the latter should also be added to the paragraph describing her.
    • I personally don't see the value of specifying the ship's sponsor in the infobox...it doesn't add much to the understanding of the ship and adds a line to an already-long infobox.
      • I won't sweat the sponsor, as I agree that it's really not that useful.
    • As for power, do you mean shaft horsepower/kilowatts for the turbines? I'll need to track that information down.
      • Yes, I suspect it's about 40,000 shp, but verify that figure.
        • Done
  • Be sure to distinguish between RN and RAN FAA squadrons more consistently since they have duplicate numbers.
    • RN and RAN squadrons do not duplicate, when the carriers were acquired by Australia, these previously-decommissioned squadrons were recreated specifically for RAN service, and the numbers were struck from future RN usage. All squadrons mentioned in the article are part of the RAN FAA for the 'duration' of the article.
      • I did not know that, interesting. Then make a note as to which ones are British; simply calling it a Naval Air Squadron or somesuch isn't much of a clue.
  • What were the drawbacks to her relieving HMS Thesus?
    • The source does not specify, all that is stated is: "There is some evidence that consideration was given to sending Sydney to add to the naval air strength [following problems with Theseus] but the drawbacks were so overwhelming that the idea was dropped."
      • I think that Thesus may have had problems with her catapults, but I don't know for sure.
  • What do you mean by UP 28 when referring to the helicopter? Serial number, type designation, what?
    • Visual identifier painted on the side (see File:Sikorsky S-51 UP-28.jpg). What would be the best way to make this clear?
      • Describing it in the caption works fine, IMO.
  • What do you mean when you state that Sydney provided an air patrol for the carriers of TF 95.8? A defensive carrier air patrol? If so then clarify and link it.
    • I've changed it to read "combat air patrol" in all instances, but I will need to track down the source and be 100% sure that this is the intention. Linked in first occurance.
      • Yeah, combat air patrol, that's what I meant ;-)
  • What Task Element? No prior reference to provide context.
    • I don't know what you mean. The phrase "Task Element" appears three times, the first two also give the identifier (Task Element 95.11), while the third does not give the identifier, but is in the same paragraph as the second mention.
      • I must have missed them as I noted Task Force, but not Task Element.
  • Couple of awkwardly written sentences have been marked as such.
    • They have been rephrased. How do they look now?
      • Good.

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC) And I think that Graeme's right; I'm pretty sure that a YE is some sort of TACAN beacon. My issues have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly for your comments. -- saberwyn 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

THe pennant number crash in the opening sentence could use some attention, as could a bit of explanation for the pennants when the RAN go more US.
Any suggestions on how to format it? I don;t think there's been a recent warship A/FA where the ship carried multiple numbers during her career.
The change to a US-based system is explained at the relevant point (1969, in the Vietnam War section)... the information there is all I can reliably source.
I think that YE is a homing beacon aerial, US equipment.
In that case, I've stripped it out, as a homing beacon isn't really part of a radar suite.

GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • I would suggest that one of the pictures in the armament, sensors, and aircraft section be removed since at larger setting having these two pictures so close together could create issues for the text.
      • Bofors pic removed.
    • I would also suggest that you link to Santa Clause in the article text, while this is a well know thing in the west, other readers may not grasp that immediately. This is just a suggestion, but it could be worth looking into.
      • Done
    • "...and a RAN pilot undergoing landing qualifications aboard HMS Illustrious on 17 March 1949 crash-landed..." Crash landed where? On the carrier, near the carrier, into the carrier? See if you can nail it down.
      • Attempting to land on the carrier. Hit the deck too hard, bounced over the arrester barrier, and came to a stop in the deck park, after totalling four other aircraft. Tweaked to hopefully clarify.
    • Please address the citation needed tag in the 1941-1959 section (last paragraph).
      • I've replaced it with a hidden note explaining my concerns. If I haven't found anything by the time I nominate this for FA, I'm going to remove the claim entirely.
    • You have a red link for the term bombardment spotting, may I suggest linking to the term artillery observer as a substitute for the article? It may or may not be appropriate for the article, but I wanted to suggest it.
    • "The rescue was the longest helicopter rescue transit over North Korean territory during the war, and Sikorsky pilot received both the British Distinguished Service Medal and the United States Navy Cross: the only instance of the two medals being awarded for the same action." By the only instance to you mean the only instance of USN and RN personal receiving the same award, or do you mean the only instance ever in recorded military history? It may be worth clarifying the point here, as the statement could be seen to go either way.
      • The only time the DSM and the Navy Cross were given to the same man for the same event. Tweaked to clarify... now reads "the only instance of these two medals being awarded to the same person for the same action".
    • I'm puzzled by the repeated returns to Seasbo, while I understand that it operated as a FARRP for the carrier I'm at lost as to why the ship could not be resupplied underway. IF attached to the US 7th Fleet then a USN tender could have done this, unless there was a mitigating reason for not using supply ships to refuel and rearm Sydney. Can you explain this?
      • Not without specific references to sources. From what I've picked up from elsewhere, in the 50's, RN-designed ships were still fine-tuning the whole "replenishment at sea" concept. There would also have been major incompatibilities USN and RN/RAN equipment. Plus, ten days in port means shore leave.
    • Address the citation needed tag in the fast troop transport section please.
      • As I said to the_ed17 above, I can prove it, but I can't cite it. I'm removing the statement until I can find an explicit source for it.
    • "On 1 March 1967, the ensign flown by RAN ships was changed from the British White Ensign to the Australian White Ensign" Why the change? The article doesn't say, but I am curious to know.
      • Until 1967, the RAN and the RN both flew the British White Ensign. When the Vietnam War rolled around, Australia was involved, but the United Kingdom wasn't. The thought was that Aussie warships could be mistaken for British warships, with all the resulting diplomatic hullabaloo. Around the same time, Australian national pride in the RAN and the general population prompted pressuring for Australian warships to have a unique identifying symbol. These led to the design of a new ensign (pretty much the normal Australian flag with the blue background and white stars reversed), it got the royal thumbs up in 1966, and entered use in 1967.
    • On the whole, a good article, but work still needs done before the coveted "A" can be awarded to the bird farm :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright then, I'm happy. Good luck with the cn tags, I am sure you will find the material if you look hard enough for it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that this highly detailed article easily meets the A class criteria (disclaimer: I added a few odds and ends to it). My only substantive suggestion for further improvements is to read through the article and remove repeated material - I've spotted and removed some, but there may be more. Other comments are:
    • The article states that Sydney returned to Sydney on 18 May 1966 and then departed on 25 April - I suspect this should be 25 May.
    • 'xth Battalion RAR' isn't a common way of naming these units - I'd suggest that you stick to the more common 'x RAR' (eg, 1 RAR, 5 RAR) after introducing this acronym for 1 RAR.
    • The article also refers to 'With 7th Battalion' and 'with 2nd Battalion'; this should be 'with 7 RAR' and 'with 2 RAR' respectively (and wherever else similar text crops up) Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

HMS Lion (1910)[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I believe that it meets all the requirements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length (>30kb), WP:LEAD recommends three to four paragraphs.
    • True, but that's a real problem when the bulk of the article consists of a description of the ship and of the battles that she participated in. Nothing that lends itself to more than a sentence or two of summary. Do you have any concrete suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. It currently doesn't mention anything about the design of the ship and skips very lightly over the description of the battles, which make up the bulk of the article. If I were writing the article, I would devote one paragraph to summarizing the design information, one to the service section up through the Battle of Dogger Bank and a third to the Battle of Jutland through scrapping. Dana boomer (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've expanded the lead. Most of the FA German battlecruiser articles now have a lead about what it is now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, "except when she was refitting or under repair." The ship cannot refit herself, so "being refitted" or something along those lines would probably be a better word choice.
    • Done.
  • Propulsion, "These were her second set of propellers as the original propellers had been judged unsatisfactory after preliminary engine trials in January 1912." Any idea why they were judged unsatisfactory? Too small, not strong enough, etc.?
    • Roberts' account is kind of confusing. She actually ran her 1912 trials with the larger-area propellers which were not particularly satisfactory as propulsive efficiency was 43.5% and she only made 27.623 knots despite forcing the machinery to 76623 shp. The older BCs had efficiency ratings around 50%, so she was fitted with the smaller-area propellers originally intended for her, which proved to be even less-efficient. So the larger-area ones were reinstalled. The DNC believed that her rough bottom cost her .8 knots and didn't worry about it any further. All a bit more detail than is really necessary so maybe I'll just take that sentence out entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propulsion. The first linking of shaft horse power should be moved to the first instance of the term.
    • Done
  • Armament, "added in January 1915 and another the following July 1915." I don't think you need the second 1915.
    • I agree.

Overall, the article looks quite good. I look forward to supporting when these issues have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I have changed to a support. Dana boomer (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • No problems with external links or alt text. Two dab links are reported to be present in the article, please locate and if at all possible remove these links. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
    • In the armor section you note that more armor was added after the bad experinces at jutland. Did the extra armour added after the battle of jutland compromise any of the battlecruiser's design features? The article doesn't say, but I would be interested in knowing.
      • It totalled only about 100 tons so had no real effect on speed, etc.
    • There were several instances of ship names in non-italic format, I corrected those I caught, but please do take another pass through an make sure this issue is dealt with here.
      • Done
    • Why didn't the admiralty want the battlecruiser's damaged status to be known? Was that a calculated move to deprive the enemy of information or was that do to embarrassment at the damage from German naval artillery?
      • More the latter as initial reports were of a British defeat and they didn't want to add any confirmation.
    • The battle of jutland gives a number of times, but I see no AM/PM reference to the initial times, can you clarify this for us please?
      • Done
    • The German fire was accurate from the beginning, but the British over-estimated the range as the German ships blended into the haze. What haze? The haze of morning? The Haze of Battle? The haze from the smoke of the gun barrels? Please specify this. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It depends when you're talking about. Visibility is ordinarily pretty crappy in the North Sea to begin with and all the coal and cordite smoke didn't help matters any. I've tried to specify if these latter two things directly influenced things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Passed this for GA and additional work since then seems to have improved further, so no issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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.

List of battlecruisers of Germany[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


This is the list article to tie together all of the German battlecruiser articles. I've never written a list article before, so I wanted to get more feedback before I take it to WP:FLC. Thanks in advance to everyone who reviews the list. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort out the formatting of the tables so the headers are usual size font (MoS here), and the data lines up under the headings, dates might work better all centred. If space is and issue, reduce dates to just the year. fate could also fall under the "service" header.
A mention of the alternative designation of the various german Pocket battleships and heavy cruisers as battlecruisers should be made, eg some might expect to see Gneisenau here.
See also to other appropriate lists - eg the British battlecruisers, german battleships.
GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there's also overlinking to be sorted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some fixes to the table (as have a couple of other editors); does that look better now? The pocket battleships were AFAIK never referred to as battlecruisers, and the Scharnhorst class is addressed here. I also added "see also" links as you suggested. Thanks for your help! Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tables are improved in terms of layout, but the overlinking remains.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, looks like I overlooked that. I've fixed in now. Thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment - I'm glad to see that my suggestion for the image gallery was taken up, but I am unhappy with the number of images. The six are currently arranged with four on the top line and two on the bottom aligned to the left (at least that is how my browser displayed them). I am not sure if this is the general intention, but I believe that the gallery would be better with just four images, e.g. Von der Tann, Moltke or Goeben, Seydlitz, and a Derfflinger-class vessel. Having multiple images of the same vessel or of the same class seems to be a bit overkill for me, plus it borders slightly astray of the image gallery policies: going from illustrating the article with relevant images to that of being a repository of images. -MBK004 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a note (I'll post full comments a bit later), my browser (Internet Explorer on a fairly wide screen) displays two rows of three images, and so looks balanced. No comment at the moment on the need for all of the images, except that they need alt text. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I trimmed two images (the second Von der Tann and the one of Moltke); it's displaying as one row of four on my screen (though it's a fairly large screen). All of the images have alt text, but it doesn't seem to work with the gallery template. Is there a way to make it work? Parsecboy (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that is how it is now displaying for me as well. As to the alt text not displaying, I have no idea. -MBK004 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So apparently alt text doesn't work with the typical gallery formatting. See Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images#Galleries for the formatting you need to use to get the alt text to show properly. Hope this helps... Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, it looks like everything is working properly now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The note about Blücher was the only thing I would have came back with, but I see that you have already added it in. You now have my support as well. -MBK004 04:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - an excellent, well presented, sourced and illustrated list. I just have three minor comments, however, but my support is not reliant on them:
    • I don't think we really need "battlecruisers" bolded in the lead. Unlike articles, lists seem to now have unbolded words/phrases in the lead.
    • The opening sentence in the lead is slightly confusing to me, and I think it needs a bit of a tweak. I am not entirely knowledgable in regards to the German Navy, so when I read the opening sentence it seems to me that perhaps the Kaiserliche Marine was a ship or class of ship, rather than the then German Navy.
    • There is a little inconsistency with both "First World War" and "Second World War" present, but also "World War I". Also, if this article going the British English route, just make sure everying is in the correct spelling.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • I de-bolded the "battlecruisers" (see, I don't know that I'm doing :) Does taking away the italics on the "Kaiserliche Marine" make it less confusing? As for "First World War/World War I", I wasn't going for British English, I just thought it sounded better where I used it. While it's more commonly used in BE, us Yanks can use it too, right? Parsecboy (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All appears to be in order. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support However, this bit in the lede looks very odd to me: German emperor Kaiser Wilhem since emperor and Kaiser mean the exact same thing, albeit in two different languages. One or the other is redundant, IMO. BTW, thanks for giving me a model to use for the British and Russian equivalents!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, who knows what I was thinking when I typed that... :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support Close to support as I think this is a very good article. However, before I do, can you ensure that SMS and HMS are used consistently - that is that they are either always used, always used at a first mention and dropped for subsequent uses (except in the tables, where it is either or), or that they are not used at all. At the moment there is a mix of styles and these have to be formatted consistently. Another point, although it is not essential to securing my support, is to consider including the information on the World War II ships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the lead instead of/as well as in the note, as I was expecting to see mention of them and had to check a couple of times before I saw the footnote. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed them all except for the first mention of each. As for the Scharnhorst class, I'm not quite sure how to work it in. If you've got any ideas, go ahead and take a crack at it. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would just add the footnote as it is to the end of the last paragraph of the lead - it would follow it quite nicely. However, this is up to you and I am not requiring it as a condition of my support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having read through the lead, examined references, looked at image licensing, etc, this article looks like a great A-class list. One minor comment, which doesn't change my support, is regarding the image caption "Von der Tann, seen at an unknown date". I'm not sure that the "seen at an unknown date" is necessary, as you don't have dates in any of the other image captions. Pointing a non-date out seems a little odd anyways, regardless of other image captions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking all through that. I removed the "unknown date" bit, as it is a little odd. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

USS Hawaii (CB-3)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan)


  • Comments
    • No problems with dab links or external links. I didn't see any alt text though, so see about getting that fixed.
    • In the design section the line The cruisers proposed as part of this ranged from the 6,000 long tons (6,100 t; 6,700 ST) Atlanta class to monster 38,000 long tons (39,000 t; 43,000 ST) ships carrying a main battery of twelve 12 inches (300 mm) and a secondary battery of sixteen 5 inches (130 mm) guns. Could you add a design or a class name of something to the sentence please? I read through this the first time and missed the switch to from the Atlanta class to the unnamed class referenced in the latter part of the sentence.
      • Take another look now. There was no class or design name in G&D, so...
    • Ten designs were drawn up through late 1939 and June 1940, most focusing on ships bigger than 24,000 long tons (24,000 t; 27,000 ST) and all utilizing 12-inch/50 and 5-inch/38 caliber guns. Could you clarify what we are talking about here on the design front? Did these start as heavy cruisers or battle cruisers, or was their a classification for them at this point in the design history?
      • Heh, I had a feeling this might get me into a little trouble, as I'm trying to summarize four pages of information in two to three sentences. I can't really answer your question though; all I can tell you is that the navy was only looking at the 12-inch gun for these designs, meaning that—at the very least—it was going to be a very heavy cruiser. I'm starting to doubt the Alaska-class cruiser's assertion (gotten from Morison and Polmar) that the class used "CC" (ie battlecruiser) early on because all of the designs in G&D that have designations are of the form "CA-2x", where x is a letter between A and I. I've got to finally get to reading what Friedman has to say in U.S. Cruisers before I decide on a course of action though. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Six ships of this design were officially ordered in September 1940 along with a plethora of other ships as a part of the 70% Expansion Two-Ocean Navy Act. Anything in there about the Iowa-class battleships, or the Montana-class battleships for that matter? They will be do for a PR/FARC at some point next year, and the more info we have on them for citing when that time comes the better able we will be to ensure these articles stay current on the OMT task force.
      • Well WP's article indicates that Illinois and Kentucky were the two authorized under that. G&D, p. 114 say that Iowa and NJ were authorized on 17 May 1938 and Missouri and Wisconsin followed on 6 July 1939, but are very vague about Illinois and Kentucky, only saying that they were authorized in "the summer of 1940". —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we find a picture of the planned conversion to the missile cruiser or to the command ship configuration? I think that in this case, as with USS Kentucky, a picture would go a long way to helping people visualize what exactly the USN was trying to do. I grant that this is one of those 'give or take' categories for improvement, but see what you can do.
    • Can we maybe move the gallery section out of the article? A commons link would suffice I think, but I leave that decision to you.
      • Well, the article only has room for three pictures if I want to avoid sandwiching the text between an image and the infobox, so I added a gallery to include a decent amount of photos. Then it just kind of ballooned into a five-image thing. I really want to keep the gallery in there, but should I reduce the amount of pictures to three? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise everything looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good, My complaints are addressed. Good luck, Ed! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why are you pointing to the Hazegrey DANFS article? The most up to date one would be at the NHHC.
  • Knots and nautical miles need US conversions. I tried to make this change but the templates exploded on me.
  • Bag the gallery. Making up for short articles by filling it with pics is tacky.
  • I'll be back in a few days to complain some more. --Brad (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments Brad. The first and third bullets are done, but the bed is calling my name, so the second will be a task for tomorrow. Will be waiting in a few days to argue your points. ;) (kidding) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking at the Alaska article and it mentioned a "carrier panic". Did that panic have any effect on Hawaii with its later build date from Guam? Seems like it did so might be worth including here.
    • I highly doubt it. I just double-checked the source for that paragraph in the Alaska class article, and it said that the studies looking at converting the Alaskas were ended in January, whereas Hawaii was canceled in May of that year.
  • Instead of having to explain the use of USS in the opening paragraph is there anything that says you can't just use Hawaii (CB-3)? I believe the conventions pertain to the article title but not the wording within the article. --Brad (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, good thought. I included that from looking at USS Illinois (BB-65) and USS Kentucky (BB-66). If I remove it, however, it may cause confusion because every other United States navy ship article includes "USS". Do you still think it should be removed? If so, I will. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know Ed. The issue is a difficult one and is currently being discussed again. Likely it's better to leave it alone but the alternative isn't a bad thought either. I suppose that removing the USS and the note will only result in having to place a note explaining why the USS isn't there. You still need to convert Mach to kph and mph as well as the nautical miles in distance of the missile. Alt text is still missing. --Brad (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I don't know either. I think that the USS with a note is clearer rather than "Hawaii (CB-3)[A 1]", but... it's a problem no matter how you change it. I converted the nautical mailes, but I don't think I can convert the mach, as it varies based on what the speed of sound is in the medium, which (I think) would change based on height above the ground. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support All of my issues are resolved. --Brad (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written and doesn't try to compensate for length by being overly wordy. – Joe N 16:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.

Florida class battleship[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


I wrote this back in August, and haven't had the time to take this higher than GA until now. I look forward to any and all comments towards improving the article, so this can eventually go to and pass FAC. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to look the article over. Parsecboy (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments

  • Design section, "adopted for the preceding Delaware's". I think it should be "Delawares", without the possesive apostraphe.
  • General characteristics section, "This was an increase of approximately 1,500 tons (1,400 tonnes) larger than". Redundancy, "increase", "larger".
  • Armament section, "or Common types, though the Common type". Should "common" be capitalized.
  • USS Florida section, "However, under the London Naval Treaty of 1930". I don't think the "however" is needed.
  • Same section, last paragraph, there is a repetition of the fact that she was broken up for scrap.
  • USS Utah, "Utah was also retained under the Washington Naval Treaty, and was heavily rebuilt during the mid-1920s.[4] In 1924–1925, the ship sailed on a good-will cruise to South America. Following her return to the United States, she was taken into dry dock for significant reconstruction." Did the ship get rebuilt twice, or is this more repetition?

Overall, this looks like a nice article, but there seems to be quite a bit of repetition. I've given some examples above; there may be more that I have missed. I look forward to supporting this article soon. Dana boomer (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dana. I've fixed everything you pointed out, except the "Common" point. It seems to be a proper noun, at least according to navweaps. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. All of my comments have been satisfied, so I've added my support. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good, but it'd be nice if you could get a specific name and date for the Secretary of State carried by Florida. Are you moving to the American ships now? – Joe N 18:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this looks good, but I think Friedman and Bryer might have additional info. I'll try to add some tonight or tomorrow :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support A preliminary read through the article did not show anything wanting, but I would like another crack at the article before offering full support. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Suuport Ok, after another read through I find everything in order, but I am concerned about the size of the article when compared to the North Carolina and Iowa- class articles. I think more could probably be said about the class, but insofar as the requirements are concerned the article does meet the standards set forth for A-class. I do caution though that you may encounter some size concerns at FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Nothing has been added regarding wetness of the casemate guns as commented in the GAR.
Description of the armor layout seems a bit cursory.
A side/plan view from Jane's or Brassey's would be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment/2010/Promoted&oldid=408842280"