Talk:HMS Firedrake (H79)

Re-write

I've re-written the "Service history" section; it seemed to need more detail. And I've moved the convoy information to a table, so it's easier to read. I trust that's OK with everyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Firedrake (H79)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thewellman (talk · contribs) 04:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There were problems with the last paragraph of the World War II section. Either the December 1942 date of sinking or the January 1943 date for escorting convoy NA2 would seem to be in error. NA2 sailed in January 1942. Escorting convoy ONS 94 before convoy ONS 44 seems similarly unlikely. Convoy ON 44 sailed in December 1941, convoy ON(S) 94 sailed in May 1942, and Firedrake assisted convoy ON 144 in November 1942. I have corrected the link to the existing article for the latter convoy; and modified the link to the earlier convoy to access the general ON convoy article and avoid ambiguity with the later ONS convoy series. I assume you may have accidentally confused or lost numerals, but I can provide alternative reference citations if your sources were in error. Thewellman (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a typo. Standardized capitalization for convoy names. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Finding two unrelated typos in a single paragraph suggests there may have been inadequate time following these edits to catch similar mistakes in other paragraphs before the article was nominated. I have put the review on temporary hold to give other reviewers a chance to look over numerical text for errors in times, dates, quantities, or sequentially numbered organizations or equipment. In the meantime, I suggest editing the Wartime modifications section (and possibly clarifying the infobox summary) to reduce uncertainty about the timing and description of weapon and sensor modifications. Naval-history.net indicates the Boston Navy Yard overhaul installed a type 271 RADAR rather than type 286; and replaced 'A' gun with hedgehog in addition to sacrificing 'Y' gun for additional depth charge stowage. Thewellman (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Sad to say, naval-history.net doesn't qualify as a RS. The only photo of the ship that I've been able to locate after her Boston refit, [1], is a poor-quality one, dated 14 Feb '42, that appears to show both 'A' and 'B' guns, so I'm disinclined to believe that the hedgehog was fitted during the Boston refit. Especially since English specifically mentions removal of 'Y' gun at that time. Why wouldn't he mention the Hedgehog if it was installed at that time? That said, English, p. 141, does list her as among those destroyers reduced to only 2 4.7-inch guns, but gives no further details. Absent a biography of the ship, no published sources are available that discuss the armament and electronics alterations in detail for any of the interwar British destroyers so what I've presented is what's out there. If you like, I can add a section stating that she was probably fitted with a Hedgehog sometime in '42, based on English. Unfortunately, nothing I have says that she was ever fitted with a Type 271 radar. Not saying that it didn't happen, just that there's nothing to cite for that statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the absence of a volunteer for a second opinion, I have taken a fresh look through the numerical portion of the article. There are a few variations within the naming sequence and dimensional data, but article text is consistent with the infobox; and the inconsistent sources appear to be within the range of various interpretations of conditions under which these characteristics were measured. This article meets good article criteria within anticipated fog of war ambiguity for subjects within the military history project. Nicely done. Thewellman (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)