Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS New Zealand (1911)/archive1

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 by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012 [1].

HMS New Zealand (1911)

[edit]

HMS New Zealand (1911) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria. It had a MILHIST ACR a few months ago and I've revised it a little since then. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • To match HMAS Australia, I added namesake, builder to infobox.
    • Good catch.
  • Could you add/cite honours (HELIGOLAND, DOGGER BANK,JUTLAND), id/pennant, and motto, if it had one.
    • I don't have any RS data on that stuff.
      • Honours and id/pennant should be in a source that describes the ship, I'd double check yours and/or maybe another editor can help. Kirk (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sort of thing is usually presented in a book dedicated to the ship, which aren't all that common. My sources generally cover all the ships of a type in a given navy and lack that sort of detail. They usually focus on the technical side of things with only brief summaries of operational histories.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I looked around in the usual places and didn't find anything; I'm ok with no pennant or motto, but I'm not giving upon the battle honours - it has to be somewhere!
            • David Thomas' Battles and honours of the Royal Navy (Leo Cooper, 1998, ISBN 085052623X) apparently comtains lists of all honours plus ships awarded them; this might be a useful approach if a specific history fails. Shimgray | talk | 14:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordered date is a little unclear - I can't tell if its 22 March 1909 or not. Kirk (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'lucky ship' portion of the lead is spread out in the body except I didn't find the phrase 'lucky ship'; you'd think there would be a wiki link for that term but its not evident as far as I can tell. In any case, I think you should add the phrase 'lucky ship' to one of the cited sentences about the Maori connection or leave it out of the lead. Kirk (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - another interesting ship article. Kirk (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm, this article was nominated on November 30th; per FAC instructions, nominators are supposed to have only one FAC up at a time. When you nominated this on November 30th, Arizona had no support and one opppose,[2] and it was not promoted until December 6. Since I've just now seen this, I won't remove this FAC, but please do not nominate two articles at once again without getting leave from a delegate. I could be wrong, but I thought we already had this conversation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I could be wrong, but isn't it still allowed to have one nom and one co-nom up at the same time? Arizona was a co-nom. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ha ... thanks for the reminder! My bad, my apologies! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to deal with holiday chores and a 2-week WP backlog at the same time, I'd go batty :) Take your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments

  • Usual nice effort, 'pon which I've performed my usual prose edits, so pls check I haven't changed any meaning inadvertently. In addition:
    • The Indefatigable class was not a significant improvement on the preceding Invincible class; the main difference was the enlargement of the design to give the ships' two wing turrets a wider arc of fire. -- "Enlargement of the design" reads a bit oddly to me; were they using bigger blueprints? Better to say "dimensions" or some such, methinks...
    • ...the battlecruisers, led by Beatty aboard his flagship, Lion, began to head south at full speed; the rising tide meant that German capital ships would be able to clear the bar at the mouth of the Jade estuary -- Not sure I get the full significance of this sentence, from two perspectives. First off, where's south in relation to the combat zone -- rather than give the compass direction Beatty headed, why not state where he was going re. say the light forces you've just mentioned? Second, if the German ships could clear the bar, so what -- did that mean they could escape or they could engage?
    • If SMS Ariadne was "directly to [Beatty's] front", why did he have to "turn[ed] to pursue"? Wouldn't he just go full speed ahead?
    • As a general comment on the Battle of Heligoland Bight subsection, I can't see much about New Zealand anyway...
    • Beatty ordered New Zealand to rejoin the squadron and turned west for Scarborough -- Can I confirm this is what you mean, that Beatty turned west for Scarborough after ordering NZ to rejoin the squadron? Just want to make sure you didn't mean "turn" instead of "turned"...
    • New Zealand fired 147 shells at Blücher before the German ship capsized and sank at 12:07 after being torpedoed -- Do we know who did the torpedoing?
  • Referencing, structure, detail and -- apart from Nikki's query above -- supporting materials all appear fine.
  • If nobody beats me to it I'll try and perform a spotcheck of online sources at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - initially reviewed earlier versions of this article did not recognise adequately the importance of the piu-piu and tiki to the unique 'regimental tradition' of this ship. Now it's been work in very well, including the last battle 'he's got them on' as a sidebox. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Close to support, but some niggles: Consider all of the below struck, supporting now. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Why the easter egg link to Early naval vessels of New Zealand#Gift of battlecruiser?
    • I'm not the expert on links, but I don't see how this is an WP:EGG problem. That's the section that explains the "gift to Britain". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Lead: "She had been intended for the China Station, but was released by the New Zealand government at the request of the Admiralty for service in British waters." if she was a gift, why did the New Zealand government have to give permission for her to serve in British waters? An explanation here would help flesh out the lede, which is a bit skimpy.
    • The language in the lead implies that the gift came with an agreement on how or where the ship was to be used, though I don't know that that's the case. - Dank (push to talk)
  • General note: I believe that the MOS wants double quotes instead of single quotes for things like "...identified as 'A' and 'X' respectively." Yep .. see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks.
    • Ealdgyth, I hope you'll pardon me for replies which may seem snippy ... they're not intended that way, but the issue was just raised again today at WT:FAC that prose is deficient at FAC these days ... assuming that this issue will be sitting on the table a few days, I'm going to have to respond when people imply that there are serious prose problems that I don't think are present. On this point, MOS also says, "There may be some conventional codified exceptions", and I've only seen single quotes around single letters at Milhist. I'll check around in style guides today. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Wartime modifications: "By 1918, New Zealand carried a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on flying-off ramps fitted on top of 'P' and 'Q' turrets." the only way I had of knowing these were planes was through linking through to them. Suggest "By 1918, New Zealand carried two aircraft - a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on flying-off ramps fitted on top of 'P' and 'Q' turrets." to make this clearer. Mention of the usage of two aircraft might also help flesh out the lede a bit.
    • "The only way" ... well, that plus the fact that they're on "flying-off ramps" on an aircraft carrier, but I have no objection to "two aircraft, a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter,". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Acquisition: Why the sudden translation "...with the Imperial German Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine)." It's the English wikipedia, and while a translation might be useful on the Imperial German Navy article, here it just looks odd.
    • The German phrase is (and always has been) included because it predominates in some sources ... in fact, the WWII equivalent, the Kriegsmarine, doesn't seem to have a common English translation, so we just go with the German. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Battle of Heligoland Bight: Why "...under the command of Admiral Beatty." when everyone else is given a first name? Also, you link Admiral here, but no where else do you link the rank before a name?
    • Thanks, I missed that this was the first mention of him, fixed. Per my disclaimer, I don't have an opinion on the second issue. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Actually Admiral wasn't linked separately, but was accidentally included in the link for Beatty.
  • Battle of Heligoland Bight: Why "...led by Beatty aboard his flagship, Lion, began to head..." but later "....brand-new light cruiser HMS Arethusa had been crippled earlier..."?
  • Battle of Heligoland Bight: I know we stated at the lede that the ship never had casualties in battle - but it would probably be best to explicitly state that she took no hits or casualties in each engagement description.
  • Raid on Scarborough: Shouldn't it be "HMS Lynx", "HMS Shark", and "SMS Roon" to fit with the convention you've used throughout?
  • Raid: Who is "Admiral Warrender"?
    • He's linked.
  • Raid: Again, aren't these missing an HMS or SMS? "...The light cruiser Southampton spotted the light cruiser Stralsund and..."?
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: Missing SMS? "...armoured cruiser Blücher's maximum..."
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "...Beatty's flagship Lion, which..." already been linked that that far previously.
    • Indeed.
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "New Zealand was relieved by HMAS Australia as flagship..." already linked in teh body and already has an HMAS...
    • Good catch.
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "...but after a scouting Zeppelin located a British...already linked earlier in body of the article.
    • Yes. This is what I get for copy-pasting from other articles.
  • Battle of Dogger Bank: "...relieving HMS Indefatigable as flagship." - Indefatigable has already been linked in the body and already has HMS.
    • Fixed.
  • Battle of Jutland: Repeat link on "High Seas Fleet" in first paragraph.
    • Done.
  • Battle of Jutland: Need an HMS in front of Princess Royal, Tiger, Inflexible, and Castor
  • Battle of Jutland: Need SMS in front of Van der Tann, Moltke, Prinzregent Luitpold, Seydlitz, and Schleswig-Holstein
  • Post-Jutland: already have linked minesweeper earlier in the article, so the link in the second paragraph is redundant
    • Done.
Most of these are niggles, but the usage of HMS/SMS and such need to be consistent throughout the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first few (at least) criticisms about HMS/SMS above miss the point, which is that HMS and SMS can serve both as a heads-up that we're talking about a ship, and give the nationality of the ship ... but in cases where both of those things have already been established, they're unnecessary, and arguably redundant. I checked the first few of those you mentioned and was happy with inclusion or exclusion of the prefix, but I haven't checked all of them ... Sturm, could you do the honors? - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of consistency - it looks very odd to the casual non-military reader to occasionally have it and occasionally not. I THOUGHT I detected a pattern of having HMS or SMS on first usage, but it appears that I was wrong. This of course, leaves aside the fact that the abbreviations are never once explained in the article. This is why I get cranky reviewing MilHist articles - you guys often times do things that seem utterly incomprehensible to the non-miitary person. I get screamed at in MY noms to explain explain explain - would I not have to if I had some big wikiproject behind me so that they could just say "This is the way we do things"�? Sorry if I seem cranky, but I answered Sandy's call to have some reviews done - especially of topics that don't attract outside editors - and then I get a "we just do things this way, it's not worth trying to make things comprehensible to the non-specialist" vibe. I'm not really picking on you, Dank, but it seems every time I've reviewed milhist articles, I get the same issue... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to disengage now, the delegates can sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've standardized it so that each ship gets its prefix on first appearance. Also linked HMS and SMS on first appearance. I don't really mind having to explain things to laymen; it's just hard to remember what needs to be explained and to what level. I don't think that I've linked HMS in any of my British ship FAs before, but that's why it's good to have non-specialist reviewers. I just think that there are more people familiar with MilHist things than there are with medieval clerical terminology, so I don't get complaints about jargon as often as you do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ealdgyth (you're all over FAC today!). Generally, on ship articles, I'm a layperson as well, but I've no problem sorting out the ship name on subsequent occurrences-- mostly because they're italicized anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 6 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_New_Zealand_(1911)/archive1&oldid=1078800436"