Talk:HMCS Fredericton (K245)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Do not use bullets in the infobox as per WP:SHIPSMOS. Use either<br/> or a {{plainlist}}

OK, I changed that and it does format better. Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up the infobox in other ways, especially by adding the Ship power entry, to meet the MOS.

Thanks. Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Clarify that Fredericton was a modified-Flower class corvette. When you discuss the changes it's not clear if you're referring to the earlier Flowers or another class entirely.

Macpherson/Milner refers to Fredericton as part of the "1940–1941 Revised Program". This is mentioned in the infobox. I used the word 'revised' informally in the text and thought that was OK. I don't know if "modified Flower class" is correct usage. I'll have to review the book again. Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The 1940-1941 Revised Programme refers to the naval construction plan and not the ships themselves. The modified Flowers are considered to be a subclass of the overall class, though I don't know if that's been noted on the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Rereading the Macpherson/Milner reference (which I consider the best on the subject of Canadian corvettes), it refers to corvette classes as revisions. The modified Flower class corvette#Flower class (modified) is referred to by Macpherson/Milner as an increased endurance class of ships built from 1942 onwards. This was needed to make the Halifax to Londonderry run across the Atlantic. Fredericton was initially only capable of local escort duties going no further than St. John's and thus was not a modified Flower. A major refit in 1943 allowed it to join cross-Atlantic escorts. Atrian (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the design section to try and make this more clear. Atrian (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• What makes the ASDIC website reliable? It's not wrong, IIRC, but it's not sourced.

I was looking for a good reference for ASDIC and this one seemed OK. Macpherson/Milner also discusses the ASDIC system but this was a comparable online source. Do you know of a better one? Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Try Brown, David K. (2007). Atlantic Escorts: Ships, Weapons & Tactics in World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-012-2 or Willem Hackman, Seek & Strike: Sonar, Anti-submarine warfare and the Royal Navy 1914–54, London: HMSO, 1984 Websites generally need a source of their own to be considered reliable, so I usually just stick to books.

I changed the reference to Hackmann. Atrian (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please provide conversions for the ship's weapons.

Done. Does the 50 cal machine gun need a conversion? Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Done. Atrian (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Link forecastle, triple expansion reciprocating engine (see Marine steam engine), sheer (proper spelling), flare, mainmast (all one word), bridge, radar, depth charge.

Links as in wikilinks? I added these. Atrian (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly.

Also 'shear' was used in the reference but it looks like 'sheer' is the proper spelling. I'll correct that. Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Change "she draughted xxx" to "had a draught of xxx" as draughted really isn't a verb.

Done. Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hedgehogs really aren't depth charges, but are depth bombs, see the Hedgehog entry for details.

Is it OK to refer to the device as a depth bomb thrower? Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly appropriate.

• Can you fix the deadlink? I had a real problem with the Heritage Project website when I was working on the RCN destroyers a while back, but I think that I managed to get a working link. (at least it worked back then)

I looked into this and asked about the Heritage Project at a forum called Army.ca [1]. I received this reply:

As the Government initiated the Common Look and Feel 3.0, the Project Pride website did not conform to the new guidelines and regulations for a government internet site and needed to be taken offline. DNHH will be creating a new website which will probably go online late 2013 or early 2014. The delays are due to the wide sweeping changes that address accessibility to information for those that may have disabilities. They are also looking at implementing a new web development tool that will make loading information on the web easier and faster for the web developers.

So it looks like this information will be revived at some point but not in the near future. Wasn't sure what to do about this. Wait or look for alternative sources for this information. Also, I wasn't able to find an archived version of the Heritage Project webpages. Do you know of one? Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, typical government efficiency. I don't know if any of the links for the River-class DD articles that I wrote are still valid, but you might try them and see if you can find the entry for Fredericton. That's about the best that I can offer as I remember that I had some success doing that when direct searches failed miserably.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found alternative refs for the CNHP. We'll just have to wait and see if this ever comes back. Atrian (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Made one small tweak on the revised design wording, so everything is good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Atrian (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)