Talk:HMS Sheldrake (1911)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 14:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Time to get back into reviewing again! Will take a look at this shortly.Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Prelim

• SM U-35 is a duplicated link

Duplicate removed.

• Image correctly licensed
• No edit wars
• Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

• Perhaps a little picky, but the H-class isn't mentioned in main text (text search didn't pick up the missing hyphen, an issue mentioned below)

The first instance is an adjective and so hyphenated.

• You deviate between "Acorn class...destroyers" in lede and "Acorn-class destroyer" in main text (hyphen)

Fixed. The adjectival form is hyphenated.

• "that served in the First World War" this makes it sounds like Sheldrake was one of twenty Acorn-class destroyers that specifically served in the FWW, when in fact those 20 are all the Acorns

Split into two sentences to make it clearer.

• The notability for Minnetonka in the lede isn't too clear with no link, suggest including the bit about U-35

Removed and replaced with Nasturtium.

• Is 9 May 1921 really the out of service date or just the date when she was actually sold?

It is the date at which is was sold and thus no longer able to be in service. It was a normal practice at the time for destroyers to be recommissioned multiple times, including from reserve.

• Include the later modified armament in the infobox?

There was no major upgrade so I feel it would be superfluous.

Design and description

• The beginning of the section reads very closely to the wording used in Acorn-class destroyer.

The first paragraph is an overview of the class and so it is not surprising if there is some overlap.

• I don't see why mentioning the Beagle class is important for Sheldrake - either expand on the importance of the move back to oil or leave it for the class article. It's not like the Acorns were the first oil fired ships in the RN. Similarly, why do we need to know which ships pioneered oil firing? Again seems more appropriate for the class article.

The first paragraph is an overview of the class as I am not assuming the reader reads that article. The relationship with preceding destroyers, I feel, is helpful for context - one risk is that the reader thinks this is the first class that is oil-fired.

• "Unlike previous destroyer designs" could you provide an example?

The Beagle and Tribal classes which were previously mentioned would be examples.

• "the machinery the only major variation" which machinery?

The power plant.

• what's a "deep" draught? You don't provide any other draught with which to compare it with

"Deep" draught is the draught under "deep load".

• A lot of detail on the turbines and shafts. You probably get away with the initial explanation, but suggest removing "The high-pressure.." sentence for the class article only.

It seems important to the source, and the arrangement seems different for the different members of the class.

• Do the sizes of the funnels mean anything for the ship?

It seems to be a recognition feature and is mentioned in the sources.

• Link aft

Done

• "a larger armament" larger than what?

Larger than the Beagle class that preceded it or any other coal-fired destroyers. I have removed the sentence as I don't think it adds to the flow.

• "The destroyer was later modified to carry..." this sounds like the armament was replaced with this, when I assume in actuality this is an addition. Do we know when "later" is?

The source is not clear whether this was additional or replacement, or when it took place.

Construction and career

• "the year number" you mean yard number?

Good spot. Yes.

• "was the sixth"

Added

• "in navy service" to avoid confusion, perhaps stipulate "Royal Navy"

Good idea. Clarified

• Our SIA page for HMS Sheldrake lists this as the fifth ship of the name, not the sixth. Are we missing one?

There seems to be. I have added the missing vessel and references to the article.

• Suggest moving the date of commissioning to after the explanation of the name of the ship to assist with the flow of the paragraph - the sudden move back to joining the Second Destroyer Flotilla is otherwise quite jarring

I have checked the source and the date is when it was completed by the yard rather than commissioned. This is now amended.

• Can you stipulate if Sheldrake joined the flotilla immediately after commissioning?

It seems to be the case but it is not explicitly the case.

• Suggest noting the beginning of the FWW

Added.

• "escort duties" escorting what?

Clarified.

• "posted to the Malta" missing something here?

Good spot. Missing text added.

• How relevant is Blenheim's role? Doesn't seem too important to the article

True. It is probably only interesting to a very limited number of people. Removed.

• "from the transport Minneapolis that was carrying 40 short tons (36 t) of horse fodder and had been previously sunk..." > "from the horse fodder transport Minneapolis that had been sunk..."

Amended.

• "On 27 April..." - suggest swapping "the destroyer" here for "Sheldrake" to avoid using the former phrase too much

A very good call. I have amended this.

• Nasturtium needs an "HMS"

Added.

• "but was unsuccessful" some further context would be good here - why was she unsuccessful, and in what circumstances was Nasturtium "stricken"?

I have added a bit about the mining of Nasturtium and rescue attempt.

• "service like escorting" > "service frequently escorting"?

Amended.

• Unless you're going to provide the nationality of all the transports noted in the article, I don't think doing so for Minnetonka is necessary

Removed.

• "but could not get close enough to launch an attack" is this because of something in particular Sheldrake was doing?

The source is not clear beyond the fear that the submarine had of an attack.

• "at the Nore"

Added.

• "on 9 May 1921"

Amended.

References

• Monograph No. 31 is not referenced in text

Oops. Reference added.

• The link for ref. #18 doesn't seem to be working

Strange. I have corrected that.

@Simongraham: This took slightly longer than I had imagined, but I've finally finished my lookover. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: No problem. That was a tour de force. I hope all your concerns are addressed. simongraham (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Happy with your changes and agree with your rebuttals where given. I have removed two further duplicated links and corrected one very minor error which I hope you won't disagree with. Apart from that, I note that File:HMS Sheldrake, Acorn-class destroyer - IWM Q 75074.jpg exists and could be used, but it is similar enough to the extant image that inclusion would be a choice. Based on the above review I am passing the article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you so much. That was a very extensive review. I completely agree with your amends too. simongraham (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)