Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMAS Melbourne (R21)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:13, 20 March 2008.

HMAS Melbourne (R21)

[edit]

Self-nomination. I feel that this article on the Australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne is ready for a run at FAC.

The article is comprehensive, covering the entire history of the ship from design planning to scrapping. All of the information if factually accurate, and is verified against the reliable published sources listed in the References section. The article is neutral, and in regards to stability, the only edits I can forsee are spelling, grammar, and phrasing fixes. It follows the style guidelines for lead section, section layout, and consistent citation use, as well as meeting the WP:Manual of Style. All of the images are of acceptable legal status, with no non-free images included. The article is pushing the upper limit for length, but I feel that none of the information present can be removed without compromising the comprehensive nature of the article.

The article has undergone a peer review and A-class assesment, both by the Military History wikiproject. -- saberwyn 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Sources look good
Question resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unsure about using "et. al" in the Citations, generally we're supposed to not use abbreviations, but I'm not sure we have to be so picky in footnotes.
Links check out fine with the little tool at the top. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with et al; there was a semi edit war at WP:MOS over whether it should be italicized, so I stopped paying attention to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so that is taken care of and I learn something new... (grins) If they are editwarring on it at WP:MOS, I have no idea which one it should be .. so it looks good to me! And my eyes thank you for using books, they are SOOOO much easier to check as far as sources....Ealdgyth - Talk 03:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviations like "et. al." (et alii/et alia - and the rest) and "ed." (editor) are commonly used in APA style citation (which is the style I've been taught for university) and other citation styles, so I'd be happer to keep it in, but I'll find a way around it if anyone else starts making noise about it. As for italicising or not, that can be changed if necessary once the backing and forthing at MOS stops.
As for using books... I like using books. There more permanent than websites, are more likely to have gone through an editorial process before being released, and if my brother starts annoying me while researching, it is infinitely more difficult to bludgeon him with a website. -- saberwyn 05:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to keep that in mind for my teenage son... anyway, taken care of and hiding this to keep things need for Sandy. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Who wrote this? If it's family members, ex-naval personal, they've created a fitting memorial to those who died. There are probably still little issues here and there, but I noticed only these on a quick run-through.
    • Consider providing a 2008 equivalent of 2.47M Australian pounds from 60 years ago. Doesn't mean much without, and if monetary sums are an issue during the history of the vessel (they are), it would be nice to have a benchmark, such as 2008 dollars. See MOS on currencies.
    • "72 foot 7 inch (22.12 m)" et al.—metrics first, please.
    • "A Sea King Mk 50 of HS 817 Squadron Shark 09 takes off, 1980"—This caption has a verb on the uppermost level, so is a real sentence and requires a final period. See MOS.
    • Quotation: "Please be advised that HMAS Melbourne arrived at Port Huangpu, intact and safely afloat, proud and majestic. She has been innocent, never once bowed to the natural or human force, in spite of the heavy storm and the talked about jinx"—should there be punctuation at the end? Or ellipsis dots?
    • Many house styles require "et al." to be italicised. Me, I'd slightly prefer not, but don't care that much. I'm sure MOS will end up allowing either. Tony (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My grandfather served aboard this vessel in the early 1960s, prior to the two collisions. He was one of the victims of 'the jinx', when he fell and broke his back in mid 1963. As for your comments: struck when completed
      • Currency benchmarks - I'll get back to you on that one, although I do have a question. Will this figure need to be updated every year, to maintain a benchmark relevant to the readers?
        • And after looking at, I realise I don't know where to begin in arriving at a 2008 AU$ figure for the various sums of money mentioned in the article. Any assistance ould be appreciated. -- saberwyn 09:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question: I found this at the ABS site (CPI - Consumer Price Index - G2), but only back to September 1969, showing a ninefold reduction in the purchasing power of the currency. We need stats from further back. [1]. Ah, earlier is here: [2]. I googled <CPI Australia historical>. You might let WikiProject Australia know if you find the data, since many Australian articles need to provide this equivalent. I think there's no need to update it regularly, as long as there's an equivalent with a reasonably modern point of time. Perhaps after five years, someone might do the honours. And did I say how good the article is? Well done. Tony (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have a go. I make no promises on success, but I'll have a go. -- saberwyn 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Update: I've got the figures and some sample working from RefDesk Mathematics, so I'll hopefully have something in the next day or two. -- saberwyn 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Update: I've converted all the post 1969 values in userspace, and as soon as I finish the others, I'll move them into the article. One problem though, the figure you specifically requeted for the original 1947 purchase price is beyond even the second set of data you've given, which starts in 1950. I'll try to find older figures, but this will be hard. -- saberwyn 03:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: All converted figures have been placed in the article, and have been appropriately nbsp'ed. There is one exception... the original 1947 purchase price. The online-available Australian Bureau of Statisics CPI data (which was used to calculate the conversions), does not go back that far, and a hidden note has been added to the article while this difficult-to-find figure is sought. -- saberwyn 02:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The use of imperial measurement came about because all of the sources that really focus on her were written in the early 1980s, either before or at the same time as Australia began converting to the metric system. Should be easy to fix.
        • Two instances, the Tracker's wingspan in the "Modifications during construction" section, and the guns on Voyager in the "Voyager collision" section, have both been converted to metric with imperial in brackets. -- saberwyn 09:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will fix the caption. -- saberwyn 09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should be a full stop at the end of the quotation, both in the body and the footnotes. Easy fixed. -- saberwyn 09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever happens, happens. Will be easy to change if necessary. -- saberwyn 09:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see you dropped by and fixed up a few en dashes. Thank you. I can never seem to get dashes and hyphens and other horizontal lines right, no matter how many times I read the relevant part of the MOS. -- saberwyn 09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great article which meets the criteria. As a note, conversions of amounts of money across periods of 60 years are very imprecise and should be avoided unless they're really needed, in my opinion. As the cost of ships has changed at a different rate than the cost of the items used in the consumer price index, it would be missleading to use the level of inflation over 60 years to convert Melbourne's price into 2008 dollars and I doubt any better index is available - unless figures are available from a reliable source, trying to work it out ourselves would be original research. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But really 2.4 million pounds from the forties does need some kind of equivalent, or it may as well not be cited at all. I see nothing wrong with a generalised "all-group" CPI factor, which still gives readers an idea of how much in general could be bought with that sum. Tony (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is exactly the kind of article I would right on a carrier if I was right for the carrier articles here. Evidently you took careful measure of the suggestions left on the both the peer review and A-class review pages. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I worked on this at the MilHist peer review. I have an issue with one sentence:

  • "Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, although later investigations found the destroyers solely to blame." - We came to agreement over language in the Evans collision section, but this sentence in the lead doesn't work for me, unless you've come up with some new sources since then. To what 'later investigation' regarding the Evans collision does this sentence refer? If there are no new sources, I'm uncomfortable with the phrase 'later investigations' - it's too strong a phrase for the non-official, independent research of book authors, IMO. Maralia (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Evans collision is going to be the death of me. :P Okay.. the SPC page says "Melbourne was again cleared of blame in relation to this incident." Cassells says nothing about the investgations in either collision. In The Royal Australian Navy (Stevens ed.) says that the comments of Melbourne's role in the collision were laid against Stevenson, and that the court martial was to clear his name (and therefore, in my interpretation, the ship's name). I don't have access to the other books at this moment in time, but will hunt them down on request.
    • My opinion is that the court martial of Stevenson, where it was found that there was nothing he could do to avert the collision, is the investigation that cleared Melbourne the second time. However, I would not oppose a rewording of that sentance to something like "Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but the carrier and her commanding officers were later cleared of blame." Suggestions? -- saberwyn 23:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your new wording immediately above works well, possibly better than what's there now, though admittedly I had no issue with the original. My one suggestion is that we should just refer to the carrier OR her COs, so maybe something like this: "Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but her commanding officers were later cleared of any blame." or "Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but was later cleared of any blame." Pls note I've also said "any blame", I think that works better given the expression earlier in the sentence is "partly at fault". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Cleared of any blame' is problematic because it was an international incident and Stevenson was cleared of blame by Australia, not explicitly by both parties to the incident (he was in fact faulted in two counts of the Joint Board findings). You could certainly say that the RAN cleared Stevenson at court-martial, that the RAN did not apply sanctions, or some variation on those, but a national finding isn't the same thing as an international absolution - imagine if the USN personnel were somehow acquitted too; it would be rather disingenuous of me to then claim the Evans was cleared of all blame, as I imagine Australia would have a thing or two to say about that (and would probably start by pointing to the Joint Board findings). Maralia (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just add that this is my only issue; it's a fabulous article, and I especially appreciate the time and effort you put into working with me when I had concerns about the collision section at peer review. Maralia (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An apple with a worm in it still means there's a worm. The fact that Stevenson was cleared by the Australian court martial is detailed in the body of the text, so people aren't going to be misled in the end. Also, trying to work all the possibilities and caveats of this incident into the lead is going to make the lead secion very awkward. I could drop any from the new sentance, but that's about it, plus its probably going to imply the same to the casual reader.
Althogh Stevenson was not cleared in an American or international court of law or similar, at least 2 USN personnel have agreed with the Australian verdict and stated that he was not at fault. In Hills' article Muddied waters, he says "McLemore still believes there was nothing Stevenson could have done to avoid the collision. But he says he was not surprised at the decision to court-martial the Australian skipper: "In the Navy you always have to have someone to blame," he says. "He was screwed, we all know that." ". Retired USN Vice Admiral Houser, in a review[3] of the book by Jo Stevenson says "After painful and indefensible charges against Steve in a Joint Board of Inquiry, Evans was found primarily to blame for the collision. The Royal Australian Navy court martial found Evans solely to blame. Reading accounts of the collision, it is easy to conclude Evans was at fault.", and repeats McLemore's claim, although attacking Jo's reasonings as to why the court-martial was held.
On the point of if the three Evans officers had also been cleared, it would say in the body of the article something along the lines of "Stevenson and the three USN officers were all cleared of blame in their home countries" followed by a sentance with an anchored link to the subarticle's section on the particulary nasty political fallout that followed. If the situation was reversed, with Stevenson charged and one or more of the USN officers honourably acquitted, the article would say "Stevenson was charged... USN officers were cleared of blame", and the lead would be changed to read "Although cleared of blame for the Voyager collision, Melbourne 's CO was charged with [blah] over the Evans incident."
It all boils down to finding multiple reliable sources from the American side of the ditch discussing the inquiry and aftermath. I'll keep looking, but I'm afraid the only way to get a definite solution to this is to nick a TARDIS, sit in on the action, become an American citizen, and then write a book on it. -- saberwyn 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Leaning towards support. Picky copy points, mostly for clarity.
  • Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but was later cleared of any blame. This is a bit woolly and doesn't reflect the article content. Replace with "Melbourne's captain was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but was acquitted of all charges at a subsequent court martial"?
  • The scrapping was delayed as Melbourne was studied by the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) as part of a secret project to develop a Chinese aircraft carrier and used to train PLAN aviators in carrier flight operations. > "Once in China, the scrapping was delayed" etc for clarity.
  • Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible in June 1947 for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. The logical connection here isn't quite made. How about > "Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, but funding cuts in 1947 led to the purchase of two only : Majestic and her sister ship HMS Terrible, for a combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition."
  • Incorporation of new systems and advances increased > "Incorporation of new systems and other enhancements increased"?
  • These carriers were intended to be 'disposable warships': they were to be operated during World War II and scrapped at the end of hostilities or within three years of entering service. > "These carriers were intended as 'disposable warships', to operate during World War II and be scrapped at the end of hostilities or within three years of entering service."?
  • In later years, these refits would either extend in length or be displaced by large-scale refits, as the age of the carrier led to the increasing need and importance of maintenance. Bit long-winded. How about > "In later years, these refits would take longer and become more large-scale, as the carrier's age began to tell."
  • Repetition. Replace commenced with "started"? Lots of although ...
  • Bofors was reduced to 12: four twin and four single. Twin and single what?
  • To be or not to be: found to be partly at fault; the third ship to be constructed with an angled flight deck; she was to be upgraded; the largest project to be undertaken; to be 'disposable warships': they were to be operated; to be constructed with these features; the Fleet Air Arm were to be decommissioned etc.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes its a bit iffy, and I'm trying to work out a way to reflect it without dedicating an entire paragraph of the lead to it. The problem is:
  • In the first collision, multiple members of the bridge crew, including the captain, were found at fault by the findings of the first Royal Commission, and all were cleared by the findings of the second Royal Commission. There was no court-martial at any stage
  • In the second collision, only the captain was charged, but was cleared by an Australian court martial (see above discussion with Maralia)
  • This might be clearer with less detail. For instance, why not simply say that there were extensive judicial inquiries into Melbourne's role in both incidents, lasting for XXX years? This has the added advantage of drawing people into the body of the article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because that is also not exactly true. With Voyager, there were inquiries for a few months in 1964 and 1967, split by several years of public campaigning for the second round. With Evans, the entire show was wrapped up by the end of August, three months after the event. -- saberwyn 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete the "lasting for XXX years" bit, if that's the deal breaker for you :) I'm not happy about the conflation of an inanimate object and people: ie specific individuals were acquitted. In the lead, I'd have thought it was better to dwell on the high profile cause célèbre aspects. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing actions and events involving named Naval vessels, it is common usage to use the name of the ship interchangeably with the ship's captain. I suppose it is a form of shorthand but it is one that has a very long history, going back at least three centuries. In an article about an event that involved a Navy ship such as HMAS Melbourne, it would be entirely commonplace to use the word Melbourne in the context of both the ship itself and its commander. Thus it is entirely appropriate to discuss the degree of Melbourne's responsibility for the accident with Voyager and it makes perfect sense to say that Melbourne was initially held partly responsible but was later cleared of any blame. Anyone conversant with normal Naval language (and we are talking about a Naval event) knows that ships generally, in both spoken and written language, are treated as if they are living things. Frankly, having served about two years on Melbourne myself, I am in no doubt that she was a cantankerous old biddy. This treatment of a ship as a living thing and especially the fact that she is home and mother to those who serve in her is in part why a ship is always feminine, even if the name is masculine (the Frank E Evans was still a she). I know that Wikipedia has a broad audience but I feel we risk losing something valuable if we have to dumb down every article, especially those within particular fields of interest, such as military and naval history, by not observings the conventions of those areas of interest.Nick Thorne talk 10:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but I'm not talking about dumbing down the article. I'm talking about changing the focus of one sentence of the lead for clarity. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the sentence reads "Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but was later cleared of any blame." This is an entirely correct sentence and is also completely consistent with the rest of the article. I am sorry, but I think you are wrong about this and I oppose changing the sentence. It is concise, accurate and entirely to the point. A change "to the focus" of this sentence is simply unnecessary. Nick Thorne talk 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not 100% comfortable with that wording. Would altering the previous sentance to read "she was sold in 1985 and towed to China for scrapping." be adequate?
  • Its unclear if the cuts were in 1946 or 1947, so changed to "...although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined..."
  • Now reads "Incorporation of the new systems and advances caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million."
  • Changed
  • I'm not comfortable with that wording, but see your point. I'll play with it Would "As time passed, the refits were either extended in length or replaced by major upgrades or overhauls." be adequate? (Note: not in the article yet). -- saberwyn 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll work on it
  • 4 instances of commenced has become two instances of commenced, one of started, and one made redundant by other phrasing. Other words to follow, but with the size of the document, some level of repetition is unavoidable. -- saberwyn 03:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 'although's have been reduced to 7. I'm having trouble thinking of synonyms other than 'but', of which there are already 16. -- saberwyn 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mounting... basically were one or two strapped together. I thought I had made it clear in the first instance in the section and dropped it from all repetitions, but on inspection the other two reductions in armament do not follow this format, so your indicated instance has been changed
  • That is the question. I'll work on it, per "Repetition" 10 instances of "to be" have been reduced to four. -- saberwyn 05:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to place further comments directly under the relevant point. -- saberwyn 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this article needs a lot of trivial MoS cleanup. I left sample edits; perhaps Epbr123 (talk · contribs) can be enticed back, as he used to catch all of this, and even fix it himself. Also, something seems off in this sentence (hyphen somewhere?):
  • At 9:58 pm, Melbourne was informed that five Ton class minesweepers, search ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure where you mean. Maybe you're saying that "Ton-class" needs to be hypenated, but searching the RAN website[4] does not demonstrate a single instance of hyphen use. -- saberwyn 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For SandyGeorgia: The sentence lists three resources despatch to help, the ton class minesweepers, the search and rescue boats from Creswell and helos from HMAS Albatross (NAS Nowra). I suspect you a mis-reading the clause about the S&R boats as being descriptive of the Ton class minesweepers. I suggest we resolve this by changing the order of the clauses to remove any confusion. I will do this now. Nick Thorne talk 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your MOS fixes so far. I will try to go through and get as many more fixed as possible. Also, the conversions you asked for in hidden notes have been made: square metres and square yards for the acre, metres for the yards. -- saberwyn 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked through, and most of the stuff you picked up appears to be the single instance of it being missed. I've nbsp'ed (or alternately {{nowrap}}ed) every measurement, time, and financial figure I can find (with the exclusion of the yet-to-be-added 2007 values for each figure requested above by Tony1, but that'll be done when I complete and insert the figures). Dates are all validly formatted, except where there is a date range. MOSNUM appears to be complied with. Conversions are done. The placement of the Commons link is something I was always unsure about... I know now. Endashes appear to be done (except where part of a wikilink to an article title with a hyphen). The captions all appear to comply, and the one you changed was one Tony1 asked me to put punctuation in above, so I don't know what's going on anymore there.
  • I make these statements with the following caveat: I have been staring at this article since October last year. By this point, my eyes could probably fail to see a small misplaced frigate. Verification of MOS compliance by a set of fresh peepers would be excellent. -- saberwyn 05:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by Saberwyn: One of the major problems so far appears to be the wording of the lead section in relation to the two collisions. The wording in the article is currently

However, she was involved in two major collisions with allied vessels. On the evening of 10 February 1964, Melbourne collided with and sank HMAS Voyager when the Daring class destroyer altered course across her bow. Eighty-two of Voyager’s crew were killed, and two Royal Commissions were held to investigate the incident. The second collision occurred in the early morning of 3 June 1969, when Melbourne collided with and sank the Allen M. Sumner class destroyer USS Frank E. Evans in similar circumstances. Seventy-four United States Navy (USN) personnel were killed, and a joint USN–RAN Board of Inquiry was held. Melbourne was initially found to be partly at fault for both collisions, but was later cleared of any blame.

That last sentance appears to be causing all kinds of grief, for what I assume to be the following reasons:

  • Although Australian sources say the carrier was cleared of blame, the second collision was an international incident, and no word has been laid down in a non-Australian reliable source on the blame or blamelessness of the carrier in the Evans collision (at least not in any source I can find)
  • Should be replaced with "Melbourne's captain": This would be incorrect, as in the Voyager collision the entire bridge crew was found at fault in the first Royal Commission, and all were cleared at the second Royal Commission. Also, if we specify that the captain was cleared, people are going to assume (incorrectly) that Other Melbourne Crewman/Officer X was found at fault and blamed for everything.

Suggested alternatives have been:

  • Changing the focus to the legal aspect - A possibility, but although the collisions were 'responsible' for the only occurance of two Royal Commissions in Australian history, and possibly the only ever joint RAN-USN Board of Inquiry (although this is not mentioned in the article as I have no source confirming on denying this fact), they were short (not including the political and public ranting that occurred between the first and second Voyager collision, two were either biased or flawed in their investgation (the first Royal Commission, and depending on the national origin of the source, the Joint BoI), and there was no specific legal action charging anyone for the Voyager collision (people were blamed, but the RAN took no action except to cold-shoulder Robertson). Too many caveats, in my opinion.
  • Drop the sentance entirely, and retool the paragraph to work without it

Responses will be appreciated. -- saberwyn 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's my two decimal units. One problem comes from tying the two incidents together succinctly in a way that doesn't happen in the body of the article. Another arises as a result of synecdoche, the honourable acquittal of the captain for negligence does not equate to complete exoneration of the vessel and the entire crew for everything. A further problem is whether the emphasis on exoneration is undue weight. Finally, it's clear that some blame did attach (rightly or wrongly) to the two skippers as their careers were ruined. The difficulties in the lead come from trying to say too much: I have no quibbles with the corresponding text in the body of the article at all. I suggest that the lead is simplified. --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would simplifying by dropping the problem line be adequate? I'm working on a slight tweak to the intro in userspace... the new paragraph reads:
Melbourne never fired a shot in anger during her career, having only peripheral, non-combat roles in the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation and the Vietnam War. However, she was involved in two major collisions with allied vessels. On the evening of 10 February 1964, Melbourne collided with and sank HMAS Voyager when the Daring class destroyer altered course across her bow. Eighty-two of Voyager’s crew were killed, and two Royal Commissions were held to investigate the incident. The second collision occurred in the early morning of 3 June 1969, when Melbourne collided with and sank the Allen M. Sumner class destroyer USS Frank E. Evans in similar circumstances. Seventy-four United States Navy (USN) personnel were killed, and a joint USN–RAN Board of Inquiry was held. These incidents, along with several minor collisions, shipboard accidents, and aircraft losses, led to the reputation that Melbourne was jinxed.
Yes! No problems with that at all. (And earlier comment changed to support.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New and improved intro (sans blame sentance) is now in the article. -- saberwyn 07:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Uh, yeah I have problem with that: according to english rules the sentence should have a semi-colon if useing however. Therefore, the sentence should look like this: "Melbourne never fired a shot in anger during her career, having only peripheral, non-combat roles in the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation and the Vietnam War; However, she was involved in two major collisions with allied vessels." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.83.183 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)&oldid=1138462089"