Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Peer review/2010

2010 archive

HMS Avenger (D14)

Any help or suggestions on how to improve this article appreciated. I have reviewed some ship articles but this is my first real effort. Hopefully going for GA - A class etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Hi, Jim, just a couple of style comments from me:

• in the Convoy PQ 18 section there is a bit of whitespace on my screen (but it might just be me);
• I think the MOS prefers numbers greater than nine to use numerals rather than words, for instance "60" instead of "sixty";
• I think that the U-boat names are meant to be in italics like the ship names, for instance U-155 should be U-155;
• I think "U-Boat" should be presented as "U-boat" (difference in capitalisation) - U-Boat redirects to U-boat. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

All done thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009

Couple of quick thoughts:

• Intro: "Avenger carried a maximum of fifteen aircraft..." This could be read as meaning she could carry up to 15, or that she happened to carry up to fifteen, but could have carried more.

Clarified

• "deck landing training" - is there anything this could link to, in case the reader's not familiar with the term?

Linked flight deck whicj was all I could locate

• "Who was unable to help..." I think this was supposed to link to the previous sentence with a comma.

reworded

• "When Avenger arrived in Britain the Fleet Air Arm was going through a shortage of Martlet fighter aircraft..." Read a little oddly. "the Fleet Air Arm had a shortage..."?

reworded

• "under command of an ex-Swordfish pilot Commander A.P. Colthust" - I'd have expected either "under the command of the ex-Swordfish pilot...", or perhaps "an ex-Swordfish pilot,(comma) Commander..." but I'm not certain I'm right!

changed

• "The weather conditions were cold..." Could this just be "The weather was cold..."?

changed

• " Icing prevented any flying on 18 September..." I'm assuming this was icing on the planes (as opposed to the ship) but might be worth clarifying.

It was the flight deck reworded

• " The Swordfish could not take off from an escort carrier deck armed with torpedoes or enough depth charges and fuel to be useful..." Just to check - did this mean that a Swordfish could not take off with a torpedo, or that it couldn't take off with a torpedo and enough fuel to be useful?

It was the short flight deck that prevented them being fully armed of fuelled reworded

• "Once off North Africa she would join the covering force for the landings, with HMS Argus, three cruisers and five destroyers. The Supermarine Seafires off Argus, and Avengers Sea Hurricanes, would provide air cover for the landings." Because the paragraph doesn't say when Op TORCH occurred, the conditional tense here doesn't make it clear if this actually happened or not - the next sentence tells us she flew air missions for two days, but not if she ever got to provide air cover for the landings, etc. Might be worth clarifying this bit a little.

Changed

Enjoyed the article, and thought the pictures added a lot to it. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very interesting article on a historically important ship. My comments are:

• Was Avenger the RN's first escort carrier? If so, some background on the process which led to the decision to build her would be interesting and relevant

She was only the first built in the US

• Where was the Sun Shipbuilding and Drydock Company located? The article implies that it was in the US, but this isn't made clear

More added

• Did the 555 man complement include her air group? (eg, the pilots and personnel who maintained the aircraft)

Bothe combined clarified in text

• Did the ship's crew join her (and then commission the carrier) in the US?

Not sure on this one will recheck but dont think its mentioned in teh sources

• "the escorts provided for convoy PQ 18, was at the time the strongest force gathered" is a bit awkward

reworded

• There are a number of instances where a possessive apostrophe is missing from Avengers (eg, "One near miss started a small fire in Avengers catapult room")

Think I got them all

• Both the external links are now dead Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed

Thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Lead

• "Avenger had the capacity for a maximum of 15 aircraft and successfully took part in the largest Russian convoy (PQ 18) up until that time." → The two factoids should probably be divided into two separate sentences, as they don't have much to do with each other. Also, up until what time? e.g. "Avenger's capacity allowed for a maximum of 15 aircraft. In (insert date here), she took part in what was the largest Russian convoy to date."
• "On her return home a number of faults and recommendations for future escort carriers was submitted by her captain." → What about, "Upon her return home, resulting from a number of design faults, Avenger's captain drew up recommendations for a future escort carrier"?
• "She then took part in Operation Torch..." → It would probably be better to write this as, "In (insert date here), she took part in Operation Torch..."
• "Originally named the Rio-Hudson, she was laid down on 28 November 1939, launched on 27 November 1940, and delivered on 31 July 1941." → Is this in reference to the ship as a merchant ship, or as an escort carrier?
• The lead could probably gain by going into a little more depth.

Hope this helps, for now. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

USS PC-1264

I picked up a copy of Black Company and after reading it looked on WP to see if it was represented. I found a stub and decided that the story of the ship needed to be told. I started in November 2009, and then left it for months. Recently, I completed it and it was upgraded to B-class. I made some more improvements, including two images. Now I'd like to see it go higher, and maybe one day even be a FA. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I added three more U.S. Navy images showing the crew (2) and a practice depth charge run (1) with explosions during the shakedown cruise. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very strong article. You've made good use of the available sources and the article is an interesting read. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• Wikipedia generally avoids text stating that the topics of articles "deserves to be remembered" - the assumption that anything which is notable deserves to be here. Text like "proud of the ship and the men who had relieved them" is also best avoided as it's emotive
  • Fixed. Thanks.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Some background on the design and role of this class of ships would be interesting and would provide useful context
  • Fixed. Thanks.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Background on how this ship came to have an African American crew (and why such crews weren't more common) would be valuable
  • Done. I added a few paragraphs and went into some detail when I realized that this information, aside from a few allusions, was not really present in WP. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• On what date did the ship possibly engage a submarine while escorting Convoy NG-448, and is is possible to be more precise about whether this was an actual German submarine or a false alert (which were much more common than German subs in the west Atlantic by 1944)
  • No date is given for this attack. But Purdon's book states the ship escorted the convoy for "a week at the end of July." It also states the incident happened on the first day. Later the text states the convoy arrived in Guantanamo on 27 July. Therefore, making an educated guess, I placed text in the article stating the incident happened on 21 July. If this is a problem, we can amend that to state "late July." I also added text stating the contact was a large underwater object and, following SOP, the PC-1264 attacked until the convoy was safely out of range. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk)
• "a radio signal detached three of the ships" - is a bit unclear. It might be best to say that "a radioed order detached three of the ships" as it was the order rather than the signal which led to this change
  • Fixed. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• As above, on what date did the sub possibly detect a German submarine near Buoy Able?
  • Found the date. Will add it now. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• It's not the case that the sinking of U-538 was the final action of the Battle of the Atlantic; U-881 was sunk by the US Navy on 5 May.
  • Fixed. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• What's the ship's current condition? While the article states that she's still extant, the satellite imagery at the coordinate provided suggests that she's one of a large number of beached hulls - is this the case? Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Contacted owner (Priolo et al. online reference.) of Web site that has 1990-era images that shows PC-1264 as a rusted hulk still afloat amid other ships sold for scrap. No answer after 10 days. So I added a sentence explaining the 1990s images.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Liverpool (C11)

It's great to see MILHIST is as active and hospitable as it's always been, along with many familiar account names, too! This article's been substantially expanded since its last PR...about two years. I've reached an impasse; there's only limited potential now for appreciable expansion. It's comprehensive within the availability of sources and accurately representative of the sources used. I'm hesitant about nominating it for FA status and it definitely would benefit from fresh insight. SoLando (Talk) 09:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yoenit

Article seems to be in very good shape, well done. Might I suggest you withdraw the peer review and head for A-class review instead? I don't think peer this review is going bring any major points which can't be handled during A-class review and if you pass for that it is just a short jump to FA.

comments:

• I prefer a separate section on the construction and design of the ship (first two paragraphs). I also think you can flesh out the first paragraph a bit more, explain for example the differences from the Arethusa class and what the design was based on.

• Implemented. I've expanded it a little bit. I'll try to intrdouce more detail later on.

• too many external links. Have a critical look at them.

• Rationalised

• What makes uboat.net a reliable source? Yoenit (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure...;-) I'll attempt to locate an alternative source, but there's actually some discrepancy as to who succeeded Captain Read. I might delete that if I can't verify AL Poland's command in the next few days. SoLando (Talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Woody

The article looks really good and I echo the A-Class comment made above.

• Structurally, the current structure for ship articles such as these is to have a design/construction section separate from the career section. I don't really mind either way but probably lean more to having a separate section for quick reference.
• Do we know who the wife of the Governor of the Bank of England was who christened her?

• Identified her and quoted a part of her speech at the launch ceremony.

• Dates, I note you use "On the 28th", some FA reviews particularly love MOSNUM which doesn't like this form, but it works within the prose, so hey ho.

• It's been an agonising struggle to minimise the repetition of full months and noun gender ;-)

• You spelt ABC's name wrong, it's Cunningham. ;)

• Ahem

• A couple of the external links could be pruned [1] and [2] don't seem to add a great deal.

  Removed. The former does offer some fascinating accounts of Liverpool's interception of the Asama Maru and her torpedoing, albeit without any discernable attribution.

• As you can see, these are all pretty small niggles. This is looking really good, well done. Regards Woody (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, A-class review it is! Thank you both for your suggestions - and it's great to see you around, Woody! SoLando (Talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06

One thing you might check. Was the ship involved in Operation Recoil, the final operation in regard to the Corfu Channel Incident? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Liverpool was in Greek waters at the time of the incident and I think Liverpool was referenced in a book dealing with the mining. I'll Google it... SoLando (Talk) 09:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• Nit picking but there is no need to use the British Royal Navy in the lede, Royal Navy will suffice.

• Omitted, although it was historically encouraged on Wikipedia. Has the convention changed?

• She commissioned into the navy on 2 November 1938. Does not read right She was commissioned or just Commissioned would be better.

• Rephrased

• Consider linking armoured cruiser San Giorgio, and sank the minesweeper Giovanni Berta. It will add red links but then it would encourage creation of the articles.

• Linked. I'll see if I can stubify them.

• Mixing of dates we have the 9 July than a bit further on 29th and 30th.

• Clarified. It's not an attempt to disregard MoS, just trying to minimise the repetition of full dates ;-).

• 12 sailors (including one unidentifiable) does this mean they did not know who he was ?

• Presumably he was later identified, but at the time could not be due to his wounds (although that isn't explicitly stated as the reason). Clarified.

• Is radio direction finder the correct link, while RDF is the correct term, should it not link to Radar ?

  Piped.

• The Imperial War Museum has a picture of her in dock at Rosyth which you could use.

• Excellent! I'll upload this image later on.

• Is this correct In September 1951, Liverpool became the first British warship to visit Yugoslavia since the beginning of the war should it not be since the end of the war. Numerous RN ships docked at Yugoslav islands during the war. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there's absolutely no elaboration on the context in the source used. It notes only that she was the first RN warship to visit the country since the beginning of the war. According to the New York Times, Liverpool was the first "Western" ship to do so in 12 years. It's possible that this refered to Liverpool being the first warship to visit the Yugsolav mainland, rather than the Dalmatian Islands, or that it was the first formal-cum-fly-the-flag visit. The sources aren't that specific :-/. Thank you, Jim! SoLando (Talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• I sadly sub-edit citations, or happily for editors who detest knowing their internals.

  Haha. I certainly don't hold that against you!

• Article shows signs of two bibliographic styles being merged, neither dominant, neither providing complete citation information of works cited (largely missing publication information, possibly missing secondary information of lesser importance like works in series).

  Slowly standardising.

• One citation style is highly atypical with regards to articles in periodicals (magazines, newspapers)
• Bibliography:

  Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Is 2006 a reprint, or is 2006 the Rev. ed.? Might pay to specify this?

  Rohwer, Jürgen & Hümmelchen, Gerhard (1992). Fullstop after location/publisher for your style. Location?

  Titterton, G.A. (2002). Routledge publishes in a ton of locations. Which did you consult? (UK/US paginations often vary).

  Whitley, M. J. (2000). Location?

  All addressed. I've replaced the generic Colledge with the edition I used in the article.

• Short citations:

  Colledge, J.J. & Warlow, Ben (2003). ?? 2006 1969 is in the bibliography?

  Stephen, Martin & Grove, Eric (1993); Bishop, Chris (2002); Brown, Paul (2009); a general problem. Citation not given in full, full citation not given in bibliography.

  Mason, Geoffrey B. (2004). Fullcitation given in bibliography.

  Removed

  A general problem with non-standard style used for newspaper articles; for example, Latest Cruiser Launched, The Glasgow Herald, 25 March 1937, p. 12. Highly non-standard citation of a newspaper article. [author if available] "Article Title," Newspaper Title?

  Reformatted?

  A City’s Gift to Warship. H.M.S. Liverpool in the Mersey. Find a better online copy please? This copy is hosted at a website for which an individual member of staff of a University (no guarantee they're academic) takes editorial responsibility.

  I've belatedly realised that I have access to the archives through my indispensable library card!

  Waters, Sydney David (1956), Needs a fuller citation. Requires both original publication information, and Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Electronic Text Centre as the current publisher. Try: Waters, Sydney David [1956] (2004), The Royal New Zealand Navy, Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–45, Wellington, New Zealand: War History Branch, Department of Internal Affairs; reprinted electronically Official War History project, Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Electronic Text Centre. Retrieved 12 April 2008.

  Apart from other work required, correct the hyphen British Warships Here at least 12; Navy Lists Warspite, 2 Car-riers, 4 Cruisers Among the Vessels Now in Our Ports

  Generally, check for scholarly journal articles?

  The variety of material cited is adequate (apart from scholarly journal articles), if the presentation of citations was improved, both the ability to verify the editorial work would improve, and the quality of the editorial work would shine through. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fifelfoo. I've extensively reformatted the references (some have yet to be reformatted, while others don't appear to have ISBNs). Some refs have been supplanted by the Times (I guess more explicitly credible where used...). Appreciate the comprehensive assesment of the article's references! SoLando (Talk) 10:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking good! :) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Previous PR: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Royal Navy/archive 1

This is about the fifth or sixth monthly article most read of the national militaries task force. As a heavily read article, it would be very good to improve it, possibly to A-class status. All comments appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

I agree that it would be great to get this article up to a high standard, though this will require quite a bit of work. My (brief) comments are:

• The history section is massively over-long. This content should be in the history of the RN article, with just a brief summary here.
• There's a fair amount of repetition
• The article presents an uncritical view of the RN. Important issues like the limitations of the Type 45 design and the difficulty the British Government has been experiencing funding the navy aren't covered.
• Much of the content isn't referenced (though there don't seem to be any glaring inaccuracies I can see) Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As some further comments

• I was surprised by the brief coverage accorded to the RN's role in providing Britain's nuclear deterrent - this is the force's most controversial role, and arguably its most important.
• It's a bit odd that there's a section on the SBS, but almost no coverage of the Royal Marines, of which the SBS are (at least on paper) part. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

W. B. Wilson

As a comparison, I looked at the United States Navy article to see how it was organized, and found its article structure preferable because it seems tighter and more focused. Concur with Nick-D's comment that the history section should be cut as there is already an article covering RN history (this complaint applies to the USN article as well, although the USN article does not appear to point to History of the United States Navy. Not sure if it would be practical, but an article section on fleet capabilities with some firm statistics would be welcome (typical ranges of air-launched- and surface-launched-strike weapons, types and ranges of missile defence weapons, typical steaming range for task forces before refuel is required (I assume not all vessels are nuclear-powered), maximum altitude of carrier-operated aircraft and maximum dive capability of attack submarines, etc. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Woody

As you can see from the past peer review I have previously had an attempt at cleaning this page up and I hope I can give you a few pointers as to the current state of the article. From a first run-through I came up with the following:

Major issues

• History section still needs a major trimming, it still goes into far too much detail. My last cull of the history section came up with this version. I think that went a bit far and didn't make the distinction between England and UK Navy but even so, I think the article as it stands needs to find a happy medium.
• Fleet breakdown table probably needs to move elsewhere, maybe the History of the RN article. It doesn't seem appropriate in a section marked the Royal Navy today to be discussing the 60s and then not elaborate on the other factors involved in the figures.
• As Nick says above, it is quite surprising that the nuclear deterrence role of the navy is not elaborated. A little history about Polaris and then the complete move to submarines away from airborne nukes should probably go in the current role section.
• Again following Nick, this article is particularly non-critical. Within the RN today there is no mention of the extreme pressure on the budgets, reduction in ship numbers, mothballing/removal of weapons from ships. The T45 budget over-runs, uncertainty over the carriers should also be included. There are regular pieces from the Times etc that should provide ample references for these. (I also have Lewis Page's book somewhere if you want refs from that)
• The titles and naming section should be merged into other sections, of the royal navy can probably be merged into the command control etc and the of ships should fit into the customs and traditions pretty easily.
• Is the popular culture section really neccessary? Could it not be wiped altogether. An organisation that has been around since the 900s will obviously have many references within popular culture; the question to ask is whether these have had an impact on the Navy itself or truly changed the public's perceptions of it. The answer for the vast majority of that section is no.
• Obvious lack of citations.

More minor/stylistic issues

• As a little stylistic thing, the article needs to trim the number of images and alternate them where they remain. There is far too much sandwiching of text between images and stacking images along the right-hand-side. This will only be relevant when the article settles down though after any trimming/rejigging of sections so best to tackle it later.
• The command section is outdated is it not, Amjad Hussain is now Director (Precision Attack) and Controller of the Navy for example.

There you go for now, hope this helps a bit. Woody (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Russia

This is my first list although I've modeled it on Parsec's lists of German BBs and BCs. As this will eventually be going to ACR and FLC I'm most interested in things that will help me through those reviews. I'm also concerned about flow and appropriate focus; I found it odd to try and summarize the article for the main body and then to summarize the first summary for the lead so I'm not sure how successful I was. And, as usual, please point out any issues with prose so I can fix them myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett

Trim the summaries (aggressively). There's far too much reading before you get to the lists of ships. If the lede for the Borodino class article is only a paragraph why does this article need four paragraphs? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Parsecboy

One thing for the moment: the fair use images need to have non-free use rationales added for this list. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

They have them already. I'm not sure I understand what you mean "for this list" Does every article that uses a fair use image need a separate rationale?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep -MBK₀₀₄ 23:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What a waste of time. Once it's fair use for one, it should be fair use for all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, I personally think copyright laws are far too restrictive (seriously, if I created something, I couldn't give a damn what people do with it after I died, but for some reason it would still be protected for 70 years, which incidentally seems a very random length of time). Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll get around to adding the ludicrous extra rationales sometime; I've not been in a hurry as Kaga's been stuck in limbo for so long and nobody's done much with Princess Royal yet so there's no room for me to put it up for an ACR yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed

Is there a reason why the Kirov class are not included? The "Key" table is probably unnecessary imho. Also, since most of the details for each of the designs are the same, would it not be better to put the tables on the right side of the section for each class, using the standard vertical infobox design? The information on the date of scrapping etc could be summarised at the bottom. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be one very tall list, requiring multiple page downs to view. The Soviets didn't call the Kirovs battlecruiser, but something like large missile ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

On the "Key" table, it was suggested when I took List of battlecruisers of Germany through FLC, which was the model for this list. While the things in the key are obvious to people like us, there are many people who would not understand what "laid down" exactly means. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

After seeing a post by Parsecboy on The Bushranger's talkpage, I was WP:BOLD and quickly expanded this and moved it to mainspace, later in the day, I found that PArsec had expanded it, and White Shadows, a person I had met through my interrest in U-boating, was telling me to nom it for a GA. It passed with only a few minor MOS probs. As we work on getting a GT out of that, I want to know what has to be done to get this to a: A-Class and b: FA-class. I'll be going back to the library on the 8th to return checked out books, so I could hunt for some refs there. I'd like to hear your opinions please. Buggie111 (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

A couple of quick ones (sorry I'll try to come back for a better look, but it is 1 am here and I should go to sleep):

• there is some inconsistency in style between Citation # 9 and 11. One uses "p. 151-152", while the other uses "pp. 332-3". Either change # 9 to "pp. 151-2" or # 11 to "pp. 332-333";
• the Bibliography has an inconsistent format. Some of the titles have dates in brackets, and others don't. Albertini is the problematic ref. I suggest formatting it with {{cite book}} like the others;
• the Vego ref in the Bibliography should have an endash for the date range (1904-14). — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• All done. I'm going to nominate this for an A-class review, as no other reviews have been given. Buggie111 (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Indiana class battleship

I am nominating this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA-class and need some input on where and how to improve the article. Two more things: I know need a decent second source for the events of the battle of Santiago de Cuba (any suggestions are welcome) and Battleship Illinois (replica) should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article, but I have no idea where or how much text I should write about it. Thanks for any feedback or comments Yoenit (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is in very good shape - great work. My only suggestions for further improvements are:

• 'Policy Board' probably doesn't need to be capitalised

 Done

• It's probably better to say that the House of Representatives 'appropriated' or 'approved' money for the ships rather than 'gave' it to the Navy Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done, I turned it into 'approved funding'

Thanks for your comments Yoenit (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The_ed17

• Illinois can probably just stay in the "See also" section; it's not like it had any effect on the design etc., and I have the feeling that any mention would sound like trivia.
• The text needs a copyedit, most glaringly for "it's" vs. "its." When trying to decide which one to use, ask yourself if "it is" would fit instead. If the answer is yes, go with "it's." If the answer is no, go with "its."

Its vs it's is one of those nasty little words which are a pain for non native speakers and it seems I am no exception, doing it consistently wrong. I have fixed all offending cases in the article and checked for then/than and where/were errors at the same time, but I can't really claim the text is now properly copy edited. Will ask somebody from the list of copy editors to have a look at it later. Yoenit (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

C Request has been made at the GoCP page a few days ago. Hope it will be picked up with their May backlog elimination drive Yoenit (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Images: there are a lot of them. Consider removing at least a few, and at the least fix the image sandwiches. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the number of images and their positioning looked great on my 24" monitor, though I see that there could be problems for other monitor sizes. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Is it just me, or are the infobox image and the image in the "USS Indiana" section one and the same? If so, you could probably lose the one in the ship's section. -- saberwyn 10:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Working on it right now, dumped two pictures, replaced two more and repositioned most of them. I am not sure about the first two pictures though. Ideally I would want to keep them both (the drawing schematic and the ship in drydock), but it is indeed a bit crowded. Any suggestions which to keep or what could be a better position for one? Yoenit (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Decided to remove the drydock picture, since it doesn't really add anything Yoenit (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

update

Article has just passed GA nomination and received a copyedit. I am currently looking to improve it to A/FA-class and any comments are more than welcome.Yoenit (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II

I would appreciate an external view. Its a very large topic, yet some detail is needed. Did I get that balance right? This is an 'umbrella' article, with articles on ships, companies and events to follow. (Irish Oak "jumped the gun" and was nominated earlier than I intended - that was a good thing). When this article makes GA, I will follow with MV Kerlogue, ST Leukos and others. WP:IMAR is a little lonely at present. All opinions welcome ClemMcGann (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

NtheP

Clem, this is a fascinating read, thanks for all your work so far. I'll probably have more later but my first impression on balance was, where is a section about Allied attacks on Irish shipping? It's mentioned in the lead but then the topic doesn't appear to surface again. I appreciate that events like the Kerlogue being bombed by the RAF are covered in the Kerlogue article but I think there needs to be an overview on this page. NtheP (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You are correct. In the lead I have 'attacked by both' and "rescued both". I'll add back the RAF attack (and denial) on the Kerlogue. (it is in note 32) Since I have U-boats stopping ships and letting them go, I'll add RN ships doing likewise - probably the Irish Plane and "where is County Clare" story. However I'm concerned lest it is too big. ClemMcGann (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

RAF attack on Kerlogue added Y

revised my opinion, I left out the "where is Clare" story N (unless you advise otherwise) ClemMcGann (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

As the grandson of a member of the Australian World War II merchant navy I think that it's great to see good quality articles like this on the important contribution made by merchant mariners during the war. My suggestions for further improvements are as follows:

Nick, thanks for the compliment and thanks for your detailed comments, I appreciate your time.

• The list of books consulted should be placed in alphabetical order - Done Y
• There are way too many notes, and most of them need to be referenced. -  Doing...

I will review them - is there a convention for refs on notes?

Yes, all material needs to be cited in higher-rated Wikipedia articles, so notes aren't exempt. Nick-D (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant: is there a way to put a ref within a ref? ClemMcGann (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you can just place a reference within the note - there are a couple of examples of this in the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal article Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ta very, I was not aware of such syntax ClemMcGann (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)  Thanks

some(?) now referenced  Doing... done Y

• The single paragraph sub-sections in the Background section should be consolidated

will do  Doing... Y Done

• The 'Change of Flag' section repeats some material which is in the background section

will review  Doing... Y Removed

• The 'Cargo' section seems a bit short - are more data on imports and exports available?

Data exists, although some official data is unreliable, it was exaggerated for wartime propaganda

CSO data on tillage added Y

• The 'Food consumption, per capita, in Calories' table doesn't seem very useful as it gives only the pre-war and post-war figures

I'll look again, my objective was to show that Irish consumption remained stable while others deteriorated. Again some wartime statistics cannot be relied on, pre-war and post-war figures are better. Earlier I was looking at UK imports from the dominions, they seemed to exceed shipping capacity. A friend pointed out that they were published during the war and were inflated for propaganda.

changed from table to a bar chart Y

back to a table N

• It seems a bit inaccurate to say that "some foods were not traditionally grown in Ireland, as the climate was deemed unsuitable" - surely the climate was unsuitable

Point taken - thanks - Done Y

• The full names of people should be provided when they're first mentioned (eg, "To the great annoyance of Gray" is a bit unclear). In other cases who they were needs to be explained (eg, "Frank Aiken reverted that policy").

Point taken - thanks - Done Y

• The text of the article states that restrictions on the use of gas were ' enforced by the Glimmer Man' but note 19 says that no such inspectors actually existed

I will probably just delete the note. There were various fictional inspectors. The public believed in them - and feared them. So they were effective. However from a wikipedia pov there are plenty of books saying that they existed - so they can be verified - Done Y (even if they didn't ;) )

• The 'Inver Tankers' section seems to be miss-placed in the 'cargo' section, and may be too detailed

I will look at it, I need to put some thought into this

reduced - moved to a note Y

• The statement that "The advantages of protection and cheaper insurance were not borne out by experience. So they chose to sail alone." needs to be expanded upon. Overall, Allied ships sailing in convoy suffered dramatically lower casualty rates than those sailing independently - did Irish ships experience the opposite as they were less likely to be attacked due to their neutral status?

Good question. Certainly they believed it to be so. The insurance company set up by Irish Shipping made a handsome profit.

One would image that such info would be readily available, but I can't find it. Ireland lost 16 of 56 (including Clonlara in convoy. What were allied in-convoy losses? N

• The 'U-boats' section should probably be earlier in the article given the importance of its topic (eg, the instructions given to German submariners regarding Irish shipping)

Moved Y

You make a few valid points on the structure - this, the Inver tankers, 'change of flag' v background - I need time to consider the structure

• The gallery of photos in the 'After the war' section seems unnecessary Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, given that I took them, I'm attached to them :)

Moved to the end and text added to each Y

Thanks again - I now have plenty of food for thought ClemMcGann (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Haus

Big fan of the article, but have had a hard time making concrete suggestions. Very nice job nailing down citations. Please take these points in the collegial spirit they are meant:

• Not a fan of the cquotes, the one in the intro seems particularly out of place.

gone Y}

• Should it be "The Irish Mercantile Marine"?

yes - done Y

• WP:LEDE suggests few if any citations in the lead. Statements made in the lead should also be in the body of the article, and cited there. I sense this guideline changed while I was away.
• WP:LEDE suggests that the article name and other alternate names should be bolded in the first paragraph. This, in turn suggests something like "The Irish Mercantile Marine in World War II, known as The Long Watch to..." as a first sentence

changed Y

• The de Valera and Dönitz photos... Not sure how much they contribute to the article, and their placement on the left is at odds with a guideline at WP:MOSIMAGE about sandwiching text horizontally between images.

still there N any other views?

• "Irish ships were offered the protection of sailing in a convoy..."
  • This is an example of a "stubby paragraph", cf User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Paragraphing
  • Why do ships usually travel in convoy?

+ve: protection, insurance

-ve: 'legitimate target', time

• • Who offered the protection?

Royal Navy

• • I think the best thing to do would be remove the subheadings "Insurance" and "Convoy experience" and make the section three substantial paragraphs.

removed Y

• The two tables in the cargo section. There's a layout issue here. One part is consistency: right now "Food" is to the right of the first table, and "Beef exports" is above the second. However, even if they were consistent, I can't see how, given the relative sizes of the text and the table, these could be formatted in a manner consistent with featured article quality. Maybe - and this is a wild guess - combining all 4 sets of data in a chart, placing it on the right, and removing the Ardmore picture...
• Having the citations and the reference list smushed together is a problem. There are a variety of ways of dealing with this. See, for example, Parsecboy's Derfflinger class battlecruiser.

done Y

Cheers Haus^Talk 10:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC) A couple of bits I forgot:

• Reconsider use of exclamation points per MOS:EXCLAMATION#Terminal_punctuation

gone Y

• The paragraph "U-638 stopped the Irish Elm..." needs to be reworked. I'd move the note material into the text, remove the parentheses, and try to get the paragraph to flow a little more naturally.

can we say that he was Familiar with the town? I vaguely recollect that he was on the SS Urundi when Blueshirts embarked for the Spanish Civil War? I do not have a reference.

sure... i was just trying to nudge the paragraph towards a more natural flow, it's by no means sacrosanct Haus^Talk 12:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks ClemMcGann (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the photos in "After the war"
  • Take a look at WP:CAPTION, I don't think captions like "3rd Sunday in November" are explanatory enough

all expanded Y

• • Consider moving the Ganly/McCarthy photo into the gallery

done Y

• • "Some of these paintings are reproduced on this page." seems off to me

gone Y}

Cheers. Haus^Talk 11:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your past advice, there is a lot here to be considered. ClemMcGann (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Coming along very nicely. I think that at this rate, you'll have a smooth road to WP:MHR#A-CLASS by the time the article passes GA. Haus^Talk 15:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

let's be optimistic and think FA!

I need to consider the comments on structure - thanks, again ClemMcGann (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Dank

Sure, you can absolutely think FA, this is a delightful article, but I see a lot of things that make my edit button itchy if you're headed to FAC eventually ... I'm going to take some time today reading ship FAC reviews to confirm or deny some of my suspicions, then I'll give this a whack. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

appreciated ClemMcGann (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• These are just some guesses for things you could do with the introduction based on what I've seen at A-class reviews and FAC; don't take these in the spirit of "you did this wrong".

don't worry - I appreciate your opinion.

• You'll run into resistance at FAC over use of the word "ton", since MOSNUM says not to use it: "Use long ton or short ton and not just ton; these units have no symbol or abbreviation and are always spelled out. The tonne, 1000 kilograms, is officially known as the metric ton in the US. Whichever name is used, the symbol is t." I think this is a really tough question, and I'm not particularly happy with the current consensus, either at MOSNUM or at SHIPS. I think we don't write for dead people, we write for whoever's reading right now, and modern readers in Ireland will have a better feel for what a tonne is than what a long ton is (even though the units are very close). Still, there's value in using words and concepts that are used by experts in reliable sources; it can lend both charm and authority. But that position has left too many sentences at FAC struggling under the weight of either conversions among 3 different kinds of tons or, if conversions are omitted, then the unit the reader is most likely to be familiar with is often the one being omitted. But as I say, I'm not in the majority. I never care about unit conversions; I'm just bringing up the issue so you'll be prepared.

I'm not happy with it either. I did add a note saying which ton was used. imho conversions seem to break up the flow of a sentence

• Lose every note in the introduction. In some cases, some of the text should be worked into the introduction;

some notes worked in, some gone  Doing... most gone Y

• "diminutive" isn't enough information, but you could say "thousands of tonnes [or whatever] as opposed to millions of tonnes for most Western European countries", and then give the figures either in the appropriate section or a note in the appropriate section. In some cases you could push all the information down into another section.

thinking ...

"diminutive" gone Y Norwegian comparison added Y

• You may be asked to remove some of the citations from the introduction, on the theory that the information is probably repeated in greater detail below and should be cited there, and mostly on the theory that we want the introduction to be as attractive and simple (but precise) as possible, to draw the reader in.

thinking ... some removed Y although others remain

• I think I'd prefer "non-allied" or "neutral" to "non-participants", but perhaps the latter has a technical or accepted meaning I'm not aware of.

not sure ... unless there are other voices, I'm leaving it alone N

• "... they always stopped to rescue. Irish mariners rescued seafarers from both sides ..." should be tightened, but I'm not sure how.

how? ... can't see how N

• I appreciate the effort to create a "punchy" style in the introduction, reviewers often seem to ask for that, but I think you're taking it too far, for instance: "Vital imports arrived. Exports, mainly food supplies for Great Britain, were delivered. 521 lives were saved."

not sure ... can't see how N

• I agree with a previous reviewer about removing {{cquote}} from the introduction.

Looks like it will have to go. I was attracted to the idea of a cquote at the top 'we are in trouble' balanced with another near the end 'the mercantile marine delivered'

gone Y

• Okay that's all for now, I'll revisit this as it moves through the review process. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of food for though there. Thanks for your time ClemMcGann (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you like, you can leave things as they are and we'll see how the reviewers react. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

for some parts, I will Y, I still value your opinion ClemMcGann (talk)

Thanks much. I see you're working hard on this and you've done a lot of good research and have a lot of good ideas. I'll give it another look when it gets to A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you. Without external opinion i would just drift ClemMcGann (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Response

Thanks to all. I reckon I'm there. A few doubts such as the use of tons. Any final thoughts before I seek GA? ClemMcGann (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nimitz class aircraft carrier

I have been worked on this article and it is currently a GA. However, I would like further input as to how it can be improved to A class or FA. Jhbuk (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Buggie111

Sorry if this is short, but all images need alts. Buggie111 (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Buggie, you should provide links to help out the editor. What he meant was WP:ALT -MBK₀₀₄ 04:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Which ones don't? I thought I'd covered them all before I started the PR. Jhbuk (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, eeveryone except the sidedrawing and the one in the infobox. Buggie111 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed - they were there, just not properly formatted (with alt=). Jhbuk (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Now nothing is popping up. IDK what happened, might just be my comp. Buggie111 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

What makes navysite.de reliable? It is done by two students who proclaim on teh page that they are amateurs. A large % of the refs are from this site YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is actually very little substantial information referenced solely under the site, just things like what deployments the ships were involved in - the referencing on the table actually came from the USN at first (I think), but I didn't put the refs in at that point for some reason. I later realised this and just put the first ones I found in, which is why there is a lump of them in the middle. Would it be better to just get rid of them in general, rather than using them to support other sources. Jhbuk (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I think I've done. There are still a couple of refs that need some extra info, but I'll do them later. Jhbuk (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only reference that might need replacing? Jhbuk (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

HSC Stena Explorer

Hello everyone,

I have begun the process of creating individual ship articles for the high-speed sea service ships. This is the first. I appreciate that some expansion is required, but does anybody have any suggestions regarding layout, content, referencing?

Thanks! Wexcan  Talk  01:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Brad101

I think the article is on a good track to B-class or maybe even GA if it can be expanded at all. You should expand the lead section to include mention of the 2001 fire. --Brad (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

HMAS Sydney (R17)

Its been about a year since we had an aircraft carrier make the approach to FA, so I think we're about due for another one: namely the Royal Australian Navy birdfarm HMAS Sydney (R17).

The following issues are known, and any advice on solving them would be appreciated:

• The sections "1952-1958", "Fast Troop Transport (1958–1965)", and "1972–1973" need to be expanded (the latter most of all) or reworked into other parts of the article.
• Conversely, the sections dealing with the ship's Korean War and Vietnam War operations are on the long side: suggestions on how to trim down or split up these sections would be great.
• There are a couple of {{clarify}} and {{citation needed}} tags still in the article: I need to explain the former in a little more detail, and find more reliable and appropriate sources than the ones given in the latter cases.

Any other observations or comments towards improving the article are more than welcome.

I request permission to intersperse my replies with your comments... if you wish for my replies to be kept separate, please specify. -- saberwyn 05:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is an excellent article. As is common for your articles on warships, it's very detailed and you've made good use of the available free images. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• I think that the length of the coverage of the ship's war service is fine. This is similar to the weight given to it in the sources I've seen, and all the material is directly relevant to the ship.
• The fact that the Viscountess Astor's role in laying down the ship was ceremonial should be specified (eg, that she presided over the ceremony, or whatever)
  • Done.
• The statement that "These two carriers were the closest to completion at the end of World War II, and were finished without major deviation from the wartime construction plans." needs a cite
  • Having a bit of trouble there. The problem is I know it (or, more accurately, I know that the other three were heavily upgraded), but I can't find/refind a blatant cite for it.
• Does the complement of 1,100 include her air group?
  • I assume so, but will need to confirm. Update: The info came from an edition of Jane's Fighting Ships I have access to at the maritime museum, and/or Cassells The Capital Ships at a semi-local library. I won't have the opportunity to access either until next week.
    • I just checked Gillett's Australian & NZ Warships since 1946 book, and he provides a figure of 1343, but doesn't break this down at all (p. 20). Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
      • There's a bit of variance among the sources as to the exact ship's company, but the numbers in the article include the CAG.
• Some of the article's text is written in the passive voice (for example, "20th CAG embarked again during August, with Sydney performing exercises" - this could be 'The 20th CAG embarked again in August, and Sydney conducted exercises')
  • I'm probably too close to the text to see problems like this. I'll put it up at Logistics for copyediting.
• What drawbacks lead to Sydney not going to Korea in 1950?
  • The source does not specify: "There is some evidence that consideration was given to sending Sydney to add to the naval air strength [following problems with Theseus] but the drawbacks were so overwhelming that the idea was dropped."
• What's meant by saying that the strikes near Wonsan were "later revealed to be a demonstration for British admiral Sir Guy Russell"?
  • Source says "...demonstration for the benefit of..." and only elaborates to the point that those on Sydney didn't know that they were flying those missions for that puropse. I don't think that info adds that much, particularly without elaboration as to what was demonstrated, so I'm dropping it.
• The section on Korea would benefit from the inclusion of a map of the area
  • How's that? Images in the section may need a little jigging to fit. I've also put in a location map for Vietnam with Vung Tau marked
• The ship's second deployment to Korea is buried in half a paragraph - I think that it warrants its own paragraph (at least)
  • The sources I've used treat the second Korean deployment in about that much detail...its usually a throwaway sentance saying "Sydney went back from [date] to [date] to enforce the UN armistace." If I find more, I'll elaborate.
• Sydney's role as the RAN's training ship during her period as a transport could be given greater emphasis
  • As above, most sources I've seen treat the training role in a single sentance.
• Jeparit and Boonaroo were only requisitioned for part of their service - they made most of their voyages to and from Vietnam as civilian vessels under charter
  • Dropped "requesitioned" from that sentance.
• The greatly improved turn around times at Vũng Tàu were due to upgrades to Sydneys cargo-handling facilities (the installation of more/better cranes and LCVPs), as well as practice. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Reworded to say "practice and equipment upgrades". I don't want to elaborate more without a specific cite. I think there's something in Grey that will do it, but again, at least a week before I can access it. How does it look now? -- saberwyn 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That looks great, and I just added a little bit of material which I've been meaning to add for the last few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Any chance you could use that source to elaborate a little on that refit? The relevant part is in the middle of the eighth paragraph, which starts "On 17 January 1968..." -- saberwyn 10:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yep, done. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Addressed some of your points...more to come. -- saberwyn 10:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

German Type UB I submarine

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring this good article to FA status eventually. User:Bellhalla, the majority contributor to this article, left Wikipedia last year. As a result it, this article has on one to "look arfter" it. (I am in no way suggesting article ownership) Anything that needs to be fixed in order to get this to FA status would be great.

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

It would be helpful if you also indicated what work you think is needed for this article to reach FA status. My suggestions are:

• The article needs a copyedit to fix some repetition and a little bit of awkward grammar
• There's good coverage of the fates of the subs, but not their achievements (to the extent there were any!)
• The lists of subs could be presented as a table providing information on the key dates in their service history (eg, commissioning, final fate, etc) Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get to work on the table soon. Do you think that I should also include a list of ships sunk or otherwise damaged by the Type UB I subs? Much like the one on German Type UE II submarine? Or perhaps I can include how many ships were sunk by each U-boat in the table that you proposed.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-written. I agree with Nick-D that a table would be good, and your idea of including ships sunk is also good. I have some other suggestions as well.

Lead

• "In 1918, four of the surviving German boats were made into coastal minelayers. Of the seventeen boats in German service, two were sold to Austria-Hungary, one was sold to Bulgaria, and nine were lost during the war." - Something's amiss here. If a total of twenty UB Is were built and Austria-Hungary bought five and Bulgaria one, how could seventeen be in German service in 1918? Should the reference to 1918 come later in the paragraph?

Design

• "By 18 August, just two weeks after the German invasion of Belgium, the planning of a series of small, coastal submarines had already begun." - Would it be helpful to add the year here as well?
• "the Germaniawerft boats seem to have had a fewer number of larger vents" - Tighten by deleting "a" and "number of"; i.e., "to have had fewer larger vents"? Or perhaps "to have had fewer large vents"?

Service

• "Another reported problem with the UB Is was the tendency to break trim... " - Should "trim" be briefly explained or linked?
• "when firing from periscope depth the boat could broach after firing" - Should "broach" be explained or linked?
• "Stern" is redlinked in the article. Would stern work?

Constantinople Flotilla

• "she was surrendered at Sevastopol in November 1918" - To whom was she surrendered?

General

• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. The first image has alt text, but it would not be of much use to a blind reader who on a machine that reads the text aloud. The other two images have no alt text. WP:ALT has details.

• What makes uboat.net a reliable source? Its editor says here, "Please note: This entire system is written by individuals in their spare time and without any official or commercial support." Does the site meet the guidelines of WP:RS?

• Perhaps the flatcar image would be better if somewhat bigger than thumb. It's hard to see what it is at thumb size.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In oreder, "Lead" I have no clue how that happened. I'll have to check up and see why the numbers are not the same. "Design", I'll get to that right now. "Service" same as Design. "Constantinople Flotilla", I'll have to look that up. I'm sure that it was the French/British as they had troops there to help out the White Russians in the RCW but I'm not 100% sure. "General" I'll have to add that in. uboat.net is a RS. Or at least acording to The Ed17. You'll have to ask him about that.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

USS Missouri grounding incident

I aim to get this to A-class and then FA class, but at this point I want some feedback about what could be improved before moving onto the next assessment phase. I am open to any ideas you have, so bring'em on :) I note for full disclosure that this article is within the scope of Operation Majestic Titan, of which I'm a part of. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

I just typed up some comments, but my browser ate them after I pressed the wrong button... I'll re-do them tomorrow, but as an initial and fairly wide-ranging comment, was the command arrangements used to navigate Missouri those which were standard for confined waters? The article gives the strong impression that her command and navigational teams were highly dysfunctional, but this is never explicitly stated - it doesn't seem normal for so many officers to have been involved, much less for them to be constantly arguing over her course and speed. The extent of this dysfunction must have dated before Brown's command - did the inquiries find this to be the case? Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are my full comments:

• A map showing the Missouri's track, or even a general map of the area, would be invaluable
• The article needs a copyedit, as it presently contains some passive wording, repeated words within sentences and some prose is overly complex
• I agree with Blackeagle's comments about most of the first three paras in the 'background' section being unnecessary. The last sentence in the introduction ("She entered the Puget Sound Reserve Fleet in Bremerton, Washington, where she remained until being reactivated in 1984 as part of the 600-ship Navy plan put forth by then President Ronald Reagan and his Navy Secretary John Lehman") also isn't necessary.
• An explanation of the different roles each of the main people identified in the article had during the navigation of the ship in confined waters is needed; at present it's clear who was meant to do what
• "The battleship USS Missouri ran aground during a transition from harbor to Chesapeake Bay, heading for open sea" - I don't think that 'transition' is an appropriate word here ('transit', perhaps?) and it's rather complex. How about something like "when the battleship USS Missouri ran aground while sailing into Chesapeake Bay"
• The political controversy mentioned (without a cite) in note 3 seems significant enough to be in the body of the article given that it is relevant to the aftermath of this accident
• As noted above, the article should cover the Missouri's command and navigation team's relationship and level of experience prior to this accident. Also, was Captain Smith's 'relief' a routine command changeover, or due to some failing?
• "met in conference" - could be simplified to 'met'
• "shoal (or mud bar)" - which was it?
• "An attempt made by Missouri's sailors on the day of the grounding met with failure" - what did this involve?
• Red Fleet links to Soviet Navy, not the publication
• "Admiral Smith, at the time Commander, Cruisers, Atlantic, and the man who was responsible for issuing Missouri's order" - which order was this?
• "the officials at The Pentagon would take notice" - this is a bit vague and it's obvious that the military's commanders were aware of this accident, especially as the article states that the ship had grounded under the noses of a bunch of senior admirals and generals, that 10,000 letters were written to the Navy following the accident and units from several parts of the military were involved.
• "Wallin pledged to assist in the salvage effort" this implies that he didn't have to take up this task - is that correct?
• The article has some informal wording that needs to be fixed up (eg, "the latter feeling that any steady speed held during the transition would be okay", "wiping out a portion of Windlass's side railing", etc)
• "A Norfolk harbor pilot was responsible for issuing the engine and rudder orders to the battleship, while Missouri's own navigator issued course orders for the battleship during the tow." - did this differ from normal practice, and if not, what was its significance?
• The "Aftermath" section is much too short. What lessons did the USN learn from this accident?
• The statement that "Despite proof to the contrary, rumors continue to circulate that Missouri suffered permanent damage as a result of the grounding incident" is referenced to a seven year old newsletter. As such, I don't think it establishes that 'rumors continue to circulate' about the ship.
• Is http://www.navysite.de/bb/bb63.htm#acc a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackeagle

I think that some of the general information about the ship in the "Background" section is probably unnecessary (as is the link to the Armament of the Iowa class battleship article). The ship's design history, armament, and WWII history aren't really relevant to this article. The post-WWII to 1949 period is what's most relevant here.

The Aftermath section is rather skimpy. Who are the other officers court martialed over the grounding? Why were two of them cleared? What repairs did the ship require?

Many of the notes can probably go. Note 2 seems like random trivia. Notes 3 and 9 aren't really relevant to the content of this article. Note 8 doesn't really seem relevant to this article, since the Pawcatuck wasn't jumboized until the mid-1960s and was still a standard Cimarron class oiler at the time of this incident. Notes 5, 6, and 7 should probably be integrated into the main body of the article.

A very nice article overall. Blackeagle (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've been writing on this article since last summer and I'm looking to make this an FA soon. I haven't nominated anything since Vasa (ship), but I feel this should be my next one. I'm intensely close to the text so I'm not really aware of any glaring problems right now. I'd like to perhaps shorten the article somewhat, but it's difficult to know where to make the cuts. I hope I can get some useful suggestions for that and other things here, though.

Thanks in advance,

Peter ^Isotalo 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is an excellent article, and is very comprehensive and elegantly written. I particularly like the photos of the ship's remnants as they currently appear - my attempts to take photos of her when I visited in 2006 were frustrated by the windows of the viewing gallery being covered in the waxy liquid being used to preserve the hull! My suggestions for further improvements are:

Those are some very nice comments and they're greatly appreciated. And it's nice to hear that the pics are helpful. I've been fortunate both in finding works that others have found and in getting a generous donation from the Mary Rose Trust. And I shouldn't forget to mention that I've gotten a lot of help with copyedting from a whole bunch of helpful and experienced editors. Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• There's a bit of repetition in some sections of the prose (eg, 'Constructing a warship of the size of the Mary Rose was a major construction project' - the second 'construction' could be omitted here)

   Done

• It should be noted that building the ship required skilled workers as well as high quality material. NAM Roger might have some material on the British shipbuilding industry of the period you can draw on if needed.
• "The average number of men on an armed mission" reads like the crew were on detached duty away from the ship; something like 'her wartime manning' might be more appropriate.

   Done

• "The English had around 80 ships with which to oppose the French, including the flagship Mary Rose, but were at a considerable disadvantage in the number of heavy galleys, the vessels who were at their best in sheltered waters like the Solent, and promptly retreated into Portsmouth harbour." is a bit awkward and unclear and might work better as two sentences.

   Done

• What 'scour pits' are might need to be explained

  Is "large underwater ditches" enough, you think? Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The statement that "Henry Abbinett became the first person to actually see the Mary Rose in almost 300 years" in 1836 contradicts the earlier statement that she could be viewed from the surface at low tide up to about 1643.

   Done

• The 'Causes of sinking' section seems out of place - it would work better before the 'History as a shipwreck' section.

   Done

• The short para that begins with 'Finally, there was a vast collection of disparate' needs a citation
• The article should cover the display of Mary Rose and artifacts from her at Portsmouth. When I was there in 2006 the long-term plan was to have the hull set up so that visitors could walk next to it on a walkway while a replica of the ship as she originally looked was on the other side of the walkway - is this still the case? Her display next to HMS Victory also warrants mention.

  I almost hoped no one would notice that one. :-) You're right about the plans, though. There are articles on the Mary Rose Museum and Mary Rose Trust with some info on that, but I agree that there needs to be a bit more in this article as well. I'll need to revisit some refs no longer in my possession for that, though. Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimitz class aircraft carrier

I put this article up for a GA review, and the main problem that came up was the lack of books cited and a lack of information in certain sections. It was recommended that the article was put up for a PR to get additional editors involved who may have access to these sources. I wrote this article starting from this and basically kept the same structure, just adding information, prose and references. I'm now unsure about whether it would be better to combine the sections about individual ships into one large service history section, and also whether the whole article would be better if the German FA was used as a template. Any other reccomendations would be greatly appreciated. Jhbuk (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This article is in good shape, but needs to be expanded further

• "the ships are capable of operating continuously for over 20 years without refueling" - this seems something of an overstatement; if you tried running them "continuously" their machinery would break down eventually. Moreover, the ships require regular (and fairly lengthy) maintenance periods where they're unavailable for deployment.
• Given the massive number of PD US military photos of these ships it's somewhat under-illustrated
• The 'Design and construction' section should discuss the process by which the ships were designed
• " In total, the cost of construction for each ship was around $4.5 billion" - in what year's dollars is that figure? (eg, is it the cost for the first ship, the most recent ship, or an average adjusted for inflation)
• Why has the design flaw that causes the ships to list when heavily loaded not been rectified?
• "This CATOBAR arrangement allows for faster launching and recovery" - what is this being compared to? Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(continued)

• The coverage of the carriers' airwing is rather short and incomplete. For instance, I'm sure that F-14s, A-6s and Sea Kings have also operated from the carriers, and I imagine that Crusaders, Phantoms and possibly Sky Hawks have as well. This section should also discuss the relationship between the carriers and the USN's carrier air groups (which are partially independent of 'their' carrier, and move to a different ship when the carrier is undergoing a major overhaul) and how the composition of the airgroups have changed over time.
• The armaments section needs to note that their armament is limited to defensive point defence weapons only, and they mainly rely on their aircraft and the ships of the battle groups for protection (at present there's no mention of the battle groups, without which the carriers couldn't deploy)
• The discussion of the carriers' roles is missing the fact that the ships are believed to routinely deploy with nuclear weapons on board and their aircraft form part of the Single Integrated Operational Plan. This was a core role during the Cold War, and remains important today.
• On that topic, the carriers' Cold War roles and deployments are mentioned only briefly.
• RADAR shouldn't be all capitalised
• "To replace the Nimitz class after their decommissioning, the US Navy is building a new class of aircraft carriers named the Gerald R. Ford class, the first of which is expected to enter service in 2015, replacing the USS Enterprise" is a bit contradictory given that Enterprise isn't a Nimitz class vessel
• The article should cover the important symbolic and diplomatic role the Nimitz class performs.
• The article is perhaps overly dependant on internet sources as references. Sources such as Jane's Fighting Ships should be consulted. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the more minor problems and I can try to sort out a few of the others, but, as I have mentioned, I don't have access to the print copies of most books relevant to this. I'll see if I can find previews of the on google, but I don't think I'll be able to sort out everything. Jhbuk (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't added any information about the nuclear weapons, because I have read in places that The USN neither confirms nor denies their presence, but if suitable references can be found, then it can be added. Jhbuk (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackeagle

"The discussion of the carriers' roles is missing the fact that the ships are believed to routinely deploy with nuclear weapons on board and their aircraft form part of the Single Integrated Operational Plan. This was a core role during the Cold War, and remains important today."

USN carriers haven't deployed with nuclear weapons aboard since 1991. Blackeagle (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass

Why does it refer to the ships as a "line" in the intro? Surely they are a class of ships? "Line" in maritime terminology usually refers to a shipping line. BTW I agree the article could use a few more images. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS New Zealand (1911)

There are a few issues that I'd like get opinions on before I send this up for GAR. Is the lead too short? Where's the best place for the bit of trivia about the captain and the grass skirt? The differences between New Zealand and her half-sister Indefatigable are generally covered in the class article, but I'm wondering if I need to address them more here as well?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Buckshot06

Er, please be careful about your use of terms, Sturmvogel. Neither the Maori nor the Royal New Zealand Navy would be happy about you terming the Captain's wearing of the piu-piu and tiki in battle - and the subsequent lack of any serious damage to the ship - as 'trivia.' The two were ceremonially handed back to the Navy within the last couple of years and are now in the Royal New Zealand Navy Museum. [3]

There is no mention of the fact that a considerable number (~10%?) of the country's population cam aboard on the initial visit, and there is also no mention of the New Zealand officers and ratings that served aboard. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Both good points, and I have seen some numbers for her 1913 visit; now just to remember where. And where does the mention of the regalia belong? I'm a bit inclined to put it into the pre-war section as that's when it was gifted. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. Having looked up my sources, this is what they say:

..when war was declared, there were three NZ officers serving aboard, all from Christchurch: Lieutenants D. Boyle and R.C. Garsia and Mid H. Anderson.

(during Jutland) '..Many on board put their luck down to the fact that throughout the operation Captain GReen wore a Maori piu piu and greenstone tiki given to the ship in 1913 by an old chief in Rotorua. On that occasion, the chief advised that both the piu piu and tiki were to be worn by the captain when the ship was in action. With the gift came the prediction that the New Zealand would be hit three times, but her casualties would not be heavy. Capt Halsey wore the gifts at Heligoland and the Dogger Bank, and Capt Green followed suit at Jutland. ..'

'..The ship's company were firm believers both in the old chief's prophecy and in the ability of the piu piu and tiki to ward off trouble. More than a year after the Battle of Jutland, on the last occasion that New Zealand sighted enemy ships and went to action stations, a seaman was seen to climb a ladder to the bridge and take a quick look around. 'It's all right,' he called to his mates below, 'he's got them on' - a shout that assured them that the captain was wearing the piu piu and tiki.'

Grant Howard, 'The Navy in New Zealand: An Illustrated History,' A H and A W Reed, ISBN 0 589 01355 6, Wellington and Sydney, 1981, p.30-31

Therefore I'd argue that this gift was directly in the tradition of British regimental regalia, customs, traditions etc and was a potentially significant factor in crew morale. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a solid article which provides a good history of the ship, and I really do intend to upgrade the article on Australia ;) My comments are:

• I'm suprised to see that no New Zealand sources have been used; while this was a British ship, there's presumably coverage in NZ sources of the decision to fund her and how she was regarded

I'm more familiar with the technical stuff rather than the politics, so bear with me. If you've got any pointers I'll be glad to follow up, but the situation isn't as easy as it is for HMAS Australia and the RNZN wasn't yet in existence to document her as well as her sister was. Hell, I'm not even sure if the RN made any effort to collect New Zealander sailors in her crew or not. The brief mentions of her on the RNZN museum website don't imply so, but I dunno one way or another.

• Stating that the ship was a "gift to Britain" is a bit inaccurate; while NZ funded the ship, it was an investment in imperial security and was made as part of a deliberate empire-wide strategy, and wasn't a disinterested present. Saying that Australia was merely "funded by the people of Australia" also isn't correct as she was a unit of the Royal Australian Navy manned mostly by Australians.

That's more true for the Australians who did form the RAN, but New Zealand, IIRC, had no conditions placed on her by the New Zealand PM when the money was donated.

• Is the reason NZ switched to funding a BC really not known? This may have formed part of the fleet unit strategy, in which British and dominion battlecruisers were to form the basis of task forces to protect imperial shipping routes in the event of war (the RAN was established to provide a fleet unit, and the concept worked fairly well in 1914).

Yes, she was to form part of a fleet unit, but the accounts in Lambert and the Australian official history are rather vague on the exact reasons.

• The coverage of the ship's career outside of the battles she was involved in is very sketchy, and should be expanded. Topics such as how she was crewed and her training program should be covered.

She didn't have much of a career outside the war, other than the tours of the Dominions that she conducted before and after the war. And details such as you are asking for are very hard to dig up without a book dedicated to the ship.

• The 'In service' section appears to be largely boilerplate text about the battles, and there's no real focus on New Zealand's role in them. This section could be trimmed heavily, as there's no real need to provide detailed coverage of battles in which New Zealand was just one of many British ships involved.

That's true of the raid on Scarborough, but not at all true of the main three battles in which she participated. You need a fair amount of context to properly show New Zealand's actions.

• The geocities link needs to be replaced; geocities wasn't a reliable source when it existed, and it was turned off a few months ago. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I'd forgotten about that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The other thing is the payment issue - we didn't finish off paying the loan for her construction until about 1948. This needs to be included. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Financing issues are generally pretty obscure. Got a cite for it?Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hchc2009

The in-line citation could be stronger; there's quite a few paragraphs (e.g. the "Battle of Heligoland Bight" section) containing a large number of facts - in fact a whole battle's worth - but only one citation, citing quite a large section of a book. Breaking up the citations so that each new fact was covered by a different citation would probably help.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The citation covers 4 pages; I don't feel that every single fact in a paragraph needs to be cited individually if they're all found in the same source, even if they're on different pages. It's just not that hard to find a single fact in those few pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dana boomer

• The lead should be expanded. WP:LEAD recommends two to three paragraphs for an article of this length.
• ALT text needs to be added for A-class and FAC, but is not generally needed for GAN.
• The Wartime modifications section has a lot of short paragraphs, which make for a very choppy look and read.
• The prose overall looks good, but you may want to take another look over it. For example, In service section, "Walter Cowan was her Captain in 1914–15." Captain should be decapitalized here. Also in the Background section, "For some reason it was built to a modified". "For some reason" sounds rather unencyclopedic. Like I said, overall its good, but could use another comb-over before GAN.

I've made a few tweaks to the references, adding publishes and making the formatting work right. I don't think that more needs to be said about the differences between the New Zealand and the Indefatiguable. I hope the above comments help. Dana boomer (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Good work as usual, I don't think much needs to be done for GA that hasn't been already noted, however:

• For some reason sounds a bit unencyclopedic; if you can't think of an alternate expression I'd just lose those three words entirely.
• If I review for GA I'll be asking for alt text on the images; I'd also recommend increasing their size as most are quite miniscule for what they're trying to display.
• It would be preferable to remove the IWM watermark from the main image.
• I think the Battle of Heligoland Bight image would be better on the right-hand side; it stuffs the subheader (on my PC anyway) as it is, may do for others as well.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)