Talk:Peter Hammersley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Eddie891. I look forward to seeing your review. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the number of edits made since nomination; in looking for additional sources to ensure notability I've found new information that has necessitated some revision of the article. ~ RLO1729^💬 05:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we're good to go whenever you are Eddie891. Thanks! ~ RLO1729^💬 13:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RLO1729 and Dumelow I'm planning on getting to this tomorrow morning (EST) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

" Hammersley won a scholarship to Britannia Royal Naval College to train as a deck officer but his eyesight was too poor so he chose to become an engineer instead, studying at the Royal Naval Engineering College." That's quite a mouthful- could be split up or rewritten to flow a bit better?
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
link secondment in lede?
Linked. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"He would have been nicknamed "Ham" from his surname" seems a little odd that the article says what somebody would have been nicknamed?
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Hammersley won a scholarship to Britannia Royal Naval College" is there a year?
Added years of study at RNEC (also some years for later events). ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
". Poor eyesight prevented him from taking up this opportunity but he was able to switch to the" a little convoluted, might better be expressed as "he was unable to attend the college due to poor eyesight, but was able to switch"
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"in submarines from 1954 when he joined the Submarine Service" perhaps "beginning in 1954 when he joined the Submarine Service" but as it stands is fine as well
Revised and simplified. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
link First Sea Lord
I'm sure it was linked in an earlier edit, not sure why it isn't now, but re-linked – thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"During this time, Earl Mountbatten, as First Sea Lord " -> "During this time Earl Mountbatten, as First Sea Lord,"?
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear submarines could use a link
Linked. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(the world's first nuclear submarine, USS Nautilus, demonstrated this capability with a well publicised cruise beneath the ice of the North Pole in 1958)" relevance to the article?
Deleted and citations consolidated at end of para. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Rickover was apparently disinterested" -> "Rickover was disinterested"? In my view, he either was or wasn't disinterested, there's no apparently about it
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could use 'secondment' in the article as well as in the lede
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All military ranks should be linked on their first mention (or none)
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" Hammersley was presented to the Queen" I'm unfamiliar with what 'presented' might refer to other than a Debutante ball, which I don't think you mean
Although it can also mean the debutante ceremonies that began with Queen Victoria, "presented" is regularly used to describe when a person is introduced to the monarch. The cited 1988 newspaper article uses the expression as do some Wikipedia articles: Thomas Blanke, The Good Life (1975 TV series), Alexander Fleming. I would prefer to keep the current wording. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as is then Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" later known as "Spam's Folly" in his honour." so it was considered a folly? How, then would it be an honour?
There's an element of humour that is hard to convey in the article without going into irrelevant detail. A Folly (as opposed to a folly) is an architectural construction usually built for aesthetic purposes and often found in the grounds of mansions. The humour is then in the comparison with a toilet of a submarine, and "Spam's Folly" is a light-hearted (but well-intentioned) honour. I've linked "Folly" to make this connection, does that convey the intended meaning clearly enough? ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revised the sentence further, what do you think? ~ RLO1729^💬 00:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"and three other civilians " -> "and three civilians" (unless he was a civilian as well)
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" until he became too frail, prayed on his knees every night" necessary to include?
Deleted. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass from me, nice work on this one. Most comments are minor issues, feel free to discuss any further. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful and constructive comments. Just a few issues remaining (underlined) which I will sort out tomorrow (Australian time). Cheers, ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the remaining items (and removed the underlining), please review. Thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumelow: Hi, would you also review all my edits above please? Thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RLO1729, excellent work. I have no issues with any of your edits - Dumelow (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I've made a few additional minor edits that can been seen in the article edit history. Please let me know if anything needs attention. Thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 06:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RLO1729, just a few referencing things:

ref #6 says he was made a Lt. on 1 July 1950
I don't see ref #5 mentioning Hammersley at all
#1 doesn't seem to cite "and three civilians were killed" Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Eddie, these were my errors. I've fixed the ref (it was the following page). I think it best to use the date the promotion was actually granted (gazetted) as the seniority was granted as a mark of recognition after the fact: he wouldn't have had the uniform and privileges of the new rank from that time. The seniority counted for pay rises, pensions and position in the line of command. I've added notes to the article giving seniority dates. I've deleted the "three civilians" bit, I don't think it adds anything - Dumelow (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dumelow, Seems like a gap in our coverage on Wikipedia is Military seniority given that there's United States military seniority... Anyways, this article is comprehensive, well written, reasonably illustrated, referenced, and otherwise meets the GA criteria. I'm happy to promote. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, thanks again for a very helpful and constructive review, a pleasure working with you. Thanks also to Dumelow for an excellent article that only needed minimal polishing to bring to GA standard. Cheers. :) ~ RLO1729^💬 13:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, it's been a pleasure to work on this - Dumelow (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]