Talk:HMS Erin/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- hyphenate twin gun turrets
- Done.
- I'm not sure the timeline on the seizure of the ship is accurate - I found a fairly detailed account when I wrote Resadiye-class battleship that places the events much earlier (that also jives with the account in Agincourt). As far as I'm aware, the Ottomans concluded the treaty after Churchill prevented the Ottoman crews from boarding the ships. And in fact the account from Fromkin theorizes that the Ottomans offered to give Germany both ships, knowing full well that Britain would be keeping them (the Germans had rejected an alliance in July, and Fromkin suggests that it was the offer of the dreadnoughts that made them change their minds, nothing else having changed in the span of days between the rejection and signing of the alliance), but that's just speculation on Fromkin's part, since there are no records from the negotiation between Germany and the Ottomans.
- Huh, I didn't even think to check to match the accounts in Agincourt and Resadiye class because this roughly matched what I remembered. Dunning–Kruger effect strikes again! I'll probably borrow stuff from what you did for Resadiye and compress it a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ha - that reminded me of this guy I knew who called it the "Denning-Kruger effect". It was sad. So sad. Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Huh, I didn't even think to check to match the accounts in Agincourt and Resadiye class because this roughly matched what I remembered. Dunning–Kruger effect strikes again! I'll probably borrow stuff from what you did for Resadiye and compress it a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- The Jutland section is a bit brief - I don't have Campbell on hand, but it seems unlikely that more info can't be added, even if it's just a bit of context on what happened.
- I checked every entry in the index for Erin and he really doesn't have much to say about her. I suppose that I could add some stuff about the activities of the 2nd BS if that would help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant more that it’s rather abrupt - there’s a bit of background on the operation but nothing about the battle itself, while all the other operations the ship took part in have the broad strokes of what happened. You don’t need a ton of detail, but I’d think something along the lines of “after a clash between the opposing battlecruiser forces drew the Germans north toward the GF, Jellicoe outmaneuevered Scheer twice before the Germans made their escape under cover of darkness.”, fitting in the info about Erin specifically. I’d also suspect because the section is so light compared to, say, Marlborough, that it doesn’t really warrant being split off. You might then reformat the subsections as 1914-1915, 1916-1918, and the last para as Postwar. Just an idea - not necessary by any means. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK, see how it works now. Bit of a PITA to source such general statements, but I think that I got it done referring to Campbell's maps.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- I checked every entry in the index for Erin and he really doesn't have much to say about her. I suppose that I could add some stuff about the activities of the 2nd BS if that would help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- "rôle" - the accent seems unnecessary
- Done.
- I wonder if File:Launch of Reşadiye.png should have been moved to Commons, since we don't know the country of origin (presumably Britain), or if it's PD in the country of origin. Parsecboy (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Given that it's New York published, country of origin is the US, regardless of where it was actually taken. Unless you seriously want to question the copyright of every picture taken abroad in US-published works prior to 1923. I think that commons people are getting a bit too far down into the weeds of late and I don't like it (shaking my cane from my porch).
- I’d suspect that Cassier’s wasn’t the original publication - likely a Brit newspaper was. But I suppose with no evidence of another publication, it’s probably fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd maintain that even if it originally appeared in a British newspaper, that would be irrelevant because Cassier's purchased it, thus effectively licensing it, and only a US tag would be needed since we'd be using the US version of the photo. But that's really neither here nor there. I guess that I'm getting sensitive about these sorts of issues because I'm now getting questions about who the photographer was for commercially-printed photos and postcards when my feeling is that they were work for hires and who the photographer is thus irrelevant. I've barely managed to reconcile myself to the fact that I can't use hundreds of beautiful Russian photos merely because they lack the trivial information of publication date and/or photographer :-( I swear there should be a tag for copyright abandoned or unknowable.</rant> --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, the Russian copyright situation is a big part of why I haven't done any Russian ships to this point (though I've thought about doing the later Rurik, seeing as there are a lot of photos on the NHHC site of her - have you looked there for any of your Russian battleships? You might be able to do and end-run around the Russian copyright that way). Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd maintain that even if it originally appeared in a British newspaper, that would be irrelevant because Cassier's purchased it, thus effectively licensing it, and only a US tag would be needed since we'd be using the US version of the photo. But that's really neither here nor there. I guess that I'm getting sensitive about these sorts of issues because I'm now getting questions about who the photographer was for commercially-printed photos and postcards when my feeling is that they were work for hires and who the photographer is thus irrelevant. I've barely managed to reconcile myself to the fact that I can't use hundreds of beautiful Russian photos merely because they lack the trivial information of publication date and/or photographer :-( I swear there should be a tag for copyright abandoned or unknowable.</rant> --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- I’d suspect that Cassier’s wasn’t the original publication - likely a Brit newspaper was. But I suppose with no evidence of another publication, it’s probably fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Given that it's New York published, country of origin is the US, regardless of where it was actually taken. Unless you seriously want to question the copyright of every picture taken abroad in US-published works prior to 1923. I think that commons people are getting a bit too far down into the weeds of late and I don't like it (shaking my cane from my porch).
