Talk:HMS Bulldog (H91)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-15B-Bulldog.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the event of Bulldog berthing in the Guernsey port on 9 May 1940, being the first RN ship in five years to do so. Grebbegoos (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Bulldog (H91)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 05:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

GA criteria

Well-written:

I made a few grammatical modifications, but nothing significant. With that done and dusted, the article adheres to the policies on prose, structure and layout. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article is well-referenced with reliable published sources, and doesn't look to contain any original research. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover all aspects of the topic that should be covered, and does not give unnecessarily excessive detail on anything. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article exhibits no signs of bias towards or against its subject. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The most recent edits listed in the revision history trail all the way back to 2011, and give no indication that any edit warring has taken place in all that time, so I think the matter of stability is not a hinderance in this case. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Both images used in the article are validly licensed and serve a relevant illustrative and informative purpose. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After reading through the article and checking every nook and cranny, I believe it is ready to hold GA status. Congratulations! :) Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

PEEWIT convoy

Why no mention of the ship's failure to stop PEEWIT from getting shot up on the 8 August 1940? Dapi89 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, because the ship was under repair until the following month?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

According to two sources, Bulldog was undoubtedly in action on 7/8 August 1940, hunting S-Boats. How sure are we that it was under repair? Dapi89 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

She was crippled at Dunkirk on 4 June and under repair until 2 September at Portsmouth. She was further damaged by an air raid on the city on 24 August according to John English, Amazon to Ivanhoe, a history of the British prewar "Intermediate"-type destroyers. Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea 1939–1945 doesn't mention any escorts in its brief description of the attack. That said, S-Boote: German E-boats in action (1939-1945) does say that Bulldog drove off the S-boats. So I suspect that that somebody is confused about which destroyer forced the Germans to retreat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)