Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Audacious (1912)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Audacious (1912)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Audacious (1912) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Audacious had the briefest career of any British battleship, only a single year from when she commissioned in October 1913 to her loss after striking a mine in October 1914. While this makes the article considerably shorter than most of mine, I'd still like reviewers to look for the usual suspects in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Great, if brief, article. I have a few minor comments:

  • could more information be provided regarding the main battery layout? Superfiring pairs fore and aft and... ?
  • the rounding of the main turret armour needs tweaking between the body and infobox
  • suggest "in accordance with instructions the other dreadnoughts"

That's it from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, PM.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • She was sunk by a German naval mine Pipe German to the Empire of Germany.
  • off the northern coast of County Donegal, Ireland Link Ireland.
  • powered by two sets of Parsons direct-drive steam turbines Sea blue here.
    • That's the best wording that I've been able to come up with; happy to take suggestions, though.
  • The following bullet point: "Articles on technical subjects might demand a higher density of links than general-interest articles, because they are likely to contain more technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arriving in Portland on 25 July, she was ordered Maybe add "island" before Portland? I mean the US has even two Portlands.
  • Linked.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Per the Bulwark review, wrecksite needs to go
  • Some refs have states or countries, others don't - I'd recommend standardizing one way or the other (I prefer without for simplicity's sake)
    • All sources have the states/countries that they need. The others are world-class cities like London or New York and are too well known to need such.
  • Apart from the first point, references are high quality, from reliable publishers, etc.
  • I'd probably ditch the youtube search link - we don't need to be lmgtfy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

[edit]

Not much to say about this, it is small, but well-formed.

Lead
  • This feels slightly short, though that is natural given the length of the article. Even so, it feels a little unbalanced that the Sinking section of the article is so long, while only gets one simple sentence in the lead. Maybe add a small amount more detail about the sinking into the lead? I also think the the 'cover-up' of the sinking would be worthy of mention.
  • I would suggest adding is a clarification that the mine strike occurred during the First World War.
Design and description
  • "..between 1 inch (25 mm) and 4 inches with.." Need a convert template for the second measurement.
    • Converted in the armament paragraph
Construction and career
  • "..with the rest of the Home Fleet to Scapa Flow four days later.." I know there is a link, but a short inline description of where Scapa Flow is would be of benefit here, I think.
Aftermath
  • "Marlborough, of the subsequent (but fairly similar) Iron Duke class, was torpedoed at Jutland and for a time continued to steam at 17 knots (31 km/h; 20 mph) despite damage." This feels somewhat out of place. Is it meant to suggest that had things be dealt with differently, Audacious could have made it to beach? Or that improvements were made on this front? Whatever the reason, make it clear what purpose it serves in this article.
  • "'B' turret and part of its barbette was blown clear.." "were", not "was".

Nice work as always. Harrias talk 12:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good, prompt fixes. No further comments from me. Harrias talk 06:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, nice work. This looks like it meets the criteria to me. I have a few very minor queries: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, if you get a chance, would you mind checking the image licensing on this one please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:HMS_Audacious_LOC_17766.jpg is tagged as lacking author information, and when/where was this first published?
    • Added unknown photographer. Date and place of publication is unknown, but probably no later than her sinking when there'd be a high demand for a photographer of the ship.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMS_Audacious_(1912)&oldid=918176727"