Talk:HMS Howe (32)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 10:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Not familiar with this ship at all so hope to learn, as well as review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Toolbox check
- Two dablinks found:
- David Beatty
- Fixed
- Miyako
- Fixed
- David Beatty
- No external link issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Structure/prose/detail
- Lead:
- Need to decide whether you're going to say "Second World War" or "World War II" -- you use both, the first here and the second later in the article; also link the first occurrence -- at the moment you link "World War II", even though it appears after "Second World War".
- Fixed.
- You say here she was "completed" on 31 March 1941 but later you say it was 20 August 1942 -- which is it? I also don't understand the bit about the "building" time being extended - do you mean her fitout took longer than expected?
- See how you like the changes I have made.
- Need to decide whether you're going to say "Second World War" or "World War II" -- you use both, the first here and the second later in the article; also link the first occurrence -- at the moment you link "World War II", even though it appears after "Second World War".
- Construction:
- Starts too suddenly -- I think you need to ease us in a bit here by mentioning the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty and its implications up front, and then talk about the 1930 Treaty of London and its implications.
- Hmm, I was planning on explaining that in more detail in the parent article.
- I'm not after a major change, more something along the lines of "The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty limited [or "banned", whichever is correct] battleship construction by Britain [perhaps add the other nations affected]. The 1930 Treaty of London extended this ban (or "limitation"), and by 31 December 1936 it was realised that the Royal Navy was badly short of modern battleships." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Changed see how you like it now.
- Tweaked a bit for readability; let me know if I've altered meaning inadvertently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- No your changes look perfect. Thurgate (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Tweaked a bit for readability; let me know if I've altered meaning inadvertently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Changed see how you like it now.
- I'm not after a major change, more something along the lines of "The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty limited [or "banned", whichever is correct] battleship construction by Britain [perhaps add the other nations affected]. The 1930 Treaty of London extended this ban (or "limitation"), and by 31 December 1936 it was realised that the Royal Navy was badly short of modern battleships." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I was planning on explaining that in more detail in the parent article.
- I don't suppose we know why the name changed from Beatty to Howe?
- I'll double check my sources but I didn't remember seeing anything that explained the change, however, this is the norm when ships are renamed to be honest (in my limited experience anyway)
- Starts too suddenly -- I think you need to ease us in a bit here by mentioning the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty and its implications up front, and then talk about the 1930 Treaty of London and its implications.
- Operational history: "...any possible break-out by German heavy ships from their bases in the fjords" -- Um, which fjords exactly? At the very least name the country for the sake of the uninitiated, and probably link "fjords" too.
- Removed the fjords bit as I can not find it in my sources and it is not needed.
- Disposal: This is a short-short section and repeats some of what's under Post war anyway -- I'd suggest merging this info with Post war and eliminating the little section entirely.
- Removed per your suggestion.
References/citations/spotcheck
- Seems to be a "Please check ISBN" message from a bot in your bibliography...
- Fixed
- Spotcheck -- have to assume good faith re. most sources as they're books but checked the two online refs:
- FN04 (Mason) generally supports the info cited but doesn't seem to state explicitly that Howe was the last of the KGV class.
- Replaced with Roberts and Raven
- FN26 (BBC) generally supports the info cited but I couldn't see any mention about the ship being broken up by 1961.
- Removed that ref along with that section.
- Well I was suggesting eliminating the small section, yes, but then moving the supported info from that section into the Post war section -- what I mean is leave everything as it is now but add "In 2012, it was reported that parts from one of the gun turrets may still exist, having been re-used as a turntable at Dounreay nuclear laboratory." to the end of Post war (and of course add the BBC reference back). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- Well I was suggesting eliminating the small section, yes, but then moving the supported info from that section into the Post war section -- what I mean is leave everything as it is now but add "In 2012, it was reported that parts from one of the gun turrets may still exist, having been re-used as a turntable at Dounreay nuclear laboratory." to the end of Post war (and of course add the BBC reference back). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Removed that ref along with that section.
- FN04 (Mason) generally supports the info cited but doesn't seem to state explicitly that Howe was the last of the KGV class.
Supporting materials
- Infobox:
- I'd normally expect a foreign-language motto to be in italics, with the English translation in normal font but with quote marks.
- Changed per your suggestion
- Is it standard to capitalise colours for the Badge description?
- Removed capitalization
- I don't think it makes sense to repeat the "Class and type" bit in the General characteristics section.
- It is normal pratice for ship articles (By that I mean I just copied how Sturm and Parsec complete an infobox)
- Well I'm not out to alter ship article standards, so fair enough... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is normal pratice for ship articles (By that I mean I just copied how Sturm and Parsec complete an infobox)
- I'd normally expect "belt" (in "Main Belt") to be in lower case.
- Fixed
- I'd normally expect a foreign-language motto to be in italics, with the English translation in normal font but with quote marks.
- Image licences all check out.
Summary -- Generally looks good, let me know about the above points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for doing the review and I'll sort out the two remaining issues tomorrow. Thanks. Thurgate (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Apart from that one thing re. the 2012 find, all your changes so far look fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are their any other issues you can think of? Thanks. Thurgate (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Only this note about armament using newsreel footage as opposed to a book source. I'm afraid that an editor's interpretation of what a film shows doesn't stack up as a reliable source against a book. That said, if Chesneau (1980) says she carried UP launchers and none of the other sources list those among her armament, then the weight of evidence is that she didn't have them and you should just drop any mention of them and use the other sources instead of Chesneau (1980). If you really want to point out a supposed error in Chesneau, contrast it with other book sources, not a newsreel -- as it is, the note is problematic from a WP guideline perspective in terms of verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Removed and fixed. Thanks for reviewing the article. Thurgate (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Tks for that Thurgate (and Damwiki) -- pls just see one last point above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, happy to pass as GA now, tks for your efforts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Tks for that Thurgate (and Damwiki) -- pls just see one last point above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Removed and fixed. Thanks for reviewing the article. Thurgate (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Only this note about armament using newsreel footage as opposed to a book source. I'm afraid that an editor's interpretation of what a film shows doesn't stack up as a reliable source against a book. That said, if Chesneau (1980) says she carried UP launchers and none of the other sources list those among her armament, then the weight of evidence is that she didn't have them and you should just drop any mention of them and use the other sources instead of Chesneau (1980). If you really want to point out a supposed error in Chesneau, contrast it with other book sources, not a newsreel -- as it is, the note is problematic from a WP guideline perspective in terms of verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are their any other issues you can think of? Thanks. Thurgate (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Apart from that one thing re. the 2012 find, all your changes so far look fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)