Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Hermes (95)/archive1
- 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 by GrahamColm 10:05, 29 July 2012 [1].
HMS Hermes (95) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This ship was the first purpose-built aircraft carrier ordered by the Royal Navy. Begun during World War I, she was not completed until well after the end of the war as the RN evaluated its experience with its existing carriers. Slower and smaller than most of the other carriers completed after the war, she spent most of her career overseas. Early in World War II, she spent her time searching for German commerce raiders before she was transferred to the Indian Ocean. Hermes was sunk off Ceylon in early 1942 when the Japanese made their one major raid into the Indian Ocean. This article passed a MilHist A-Class Review back in November and, I believe, meets the FAC criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What is the justification for the co-ordinates entered at the top right-hand corner of the article? I can understand these being given in an article on a fixed geographical or topographical feature, but a ship is a moveable object. I am guessing that they refer to the location of the ship's sinking, but there is nothing in the article to confirm this. If this is indeed the case, the information would be far better given in the text rather than left isolated and unexplained. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly certain that those are the coordinates of her sinking, but since nothing I have actually gives that info, I've removed them as unsourced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- Fixed.
- File:HermesSinking.jpg: source link returns 404 error. When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a captured Japanese picture and probably falls outside the normal rules of copyright. That said, Shores et al, credit it to the authors's collection, while McCart credits a Lt-Cdr Larrabee. I'm willing to bet that I can find other sources for it as well and will continue to poke around until I find something with a more definite source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Australian War Memorial has two photos of Hermes sinking which are marked as being public domain: [2], [3]. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Nick, I've swapped out the questionable one with one of those. They're PD in Australia, but I'm not sure what their exact status is in the US.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the relevant question is when did the photos go out of copyright in Australia? If they were public domain on 1 January 1996, then they are PD in the US. If not, then they had their copyrights extended in the US.
- Not sure who made the immediately preceding comment but the photos would have gone out of copyright in Australia in 1992, so they fall under PD-1996, i.e. out of copyright in the States. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the relevant question is when did the photos go out of copyright in Australia? If they were public domain on 1 January 1996, then they are PD in the US. If not, then they had their copyrights extended in the US.
- Thanks, Nick, I've swapped out the questionable one with one of those. They're PD in Australia, but I'm not sure what their exact status is in the US.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Australian War Memorial has two photos of Hermes sinking which are marked as being public domain: [2], [3]. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a captured Japanese picture and probably falls outside the normal rules of copyright. That said, Shores et al, credit it to the authors's collection, while McCart credits a Lt-Cdr Larrabee. I'm willing to bet that I can find other sources for it as well and will continue to poke around until I find something with a more definite source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- mostly nitpicking, as usual.- In the lead: as far as I'm aware, a sentence should never start with a numeral - maybe check with Dan on this, I could be wrong.
- Rewritten.
- Also in the lead: does the Mediterranean Fleet really qualify as "overseas"? I've always understood the term to mean non-European waters (for European navies, of course). Especially in the British context, since the Mediterranean Fleet was their primary command for a long time.
- My primary source makes that distinction, which seems to vary by time, BTW. During the Victorian period, the Med Fleet was definitely overseas and here it's a good way to say that she was rarely deployed at home.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My primary source makes that distinction, which seems to vary by time, BTW. During the Victorian period, the Med Fleet was definitely overseas and here it's a good way to say that she was rarely deployed at home.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still in the lead: maybe clarify that the AMC she rammed was a British ship
- Good idea.
- Who was the DNC at the time of her design? The designers' names are given, so no reason to give d'Eyncourt's, especially since we have an article on him.
- Don't forget about this one. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'd missed this one, done.
- Don't forget about this one. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be worth noting in the "1930s" section that tensions between Britain and Italy were rather heightened over the invasion of Ethiopia - the average reader might be confused by the British would consider intervening. A note would probably be sufficient.
- Added.
- Maybe clarify that the Lady Southern Cross is an aircraft.
- You don't think that the link plus calling her an aircraft in the following sentence works well enough? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Ian's suggestion to italicize the name would help. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think that the link plus calling her an aircraft in the following sentence works well enough? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead: as far as I'm aware, a sentence should never start with a numeral - maybe check with Dan on this, I could be wrong.
- This is a really good article, and I look forward to supporting it once these minor issues are addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - everything looks good now. Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- didn't get a chance to comment on the article when it was up for MilHist A-Class Review in November 2011 but did copyedit the first part and made a comment on the talk page, which I reiterate below:
- Looks pretty good but I think the lead is too long and detailed, particularly re. how she was the first designed but not first commissioned carrier. At the very least I would lose (or move to main body if the citation is required there) The design of Hermes preceded and influenced that of Hōshō, and she was launched before Hōshō was laid down, but was commissioned more than six months later than Hōshō. As another example, at the end of the lead, you don't need ...that the Japanese did not attack.
- Trimmed, how does it read now?
- After re-reviewing/copyediting, a few other (minor) comments:
- I think Lady Southern Cross, being an aircraft's name, should be in italics.
- Done.
- Can we avoid using the word "fruitless" twice in successive paragraphs under World War II?
- But it's such a great word! ;-) Done.
- Suggest you don't need country links like Iraq and Australia (there may be others in the article, these are just two examples).
- Think that those were the only two. Delinked. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No prob -- looks good to me, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Think that those were the only two. Delinked. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Lady Southern Cross, being an aircraft's name, should be in italics.
- Aside from the above, pretty happy with prose, structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.