Talk:HMS Engadine (1911)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Engadine (1911)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Buttonwillowite (talk)

Sorry to but in, but I just would like to state that the section on the sinking of the SS Corregidor is inadequate for a GA. When something like 1,000 people die, that's a huge deal, and a significant part of the ship's history! If it were Americans or Europeans who were sunk on the ship, I do not believe that this is the way this section of the article would be treated. Please expand.

Further, the statement that the "[SS Corregidor] was sunk by a mine off Corregidor most likely laid by Japanese submarine I-124" doesn't match what the source says. The source states first that the mine was an army mine (implying that it was a US army mine), and later states that a man by the name of Dr. Jurgen Rohwer "attributes the sinking to a mine laid by Japanese submarine I 124 on 8 December 1941 off Corregidor, P.I.".

I don't doubt that Dr. Rohwer is respected in his field, but I'm not sure why a Japanese submarine would go lay a Japanese mine in an American mine field. This is a link to the page that your source for this statement was citing [1]. You can see that it is just a tabulation, there is no story or explanation. Compare that chart with the story found in this account[2] (starts near the bottom of page 73), which I am much more inclined to believe.

Thank you very much for your efforts in improving the encyclopedia, and especially an article so relevant to Philippine history, Buttonwillowite (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the scans posted at the bottom of this page. It is one of the most detailed narratives of the tragedy that I have seen up to this point.[3]Buttonwillowite (talk)

I-124 did mine Manila Harbor, but I've gone with Gordon and Cressman. I read through all the material on the links that you provided, but they're dealing of levels of detail far beyond what Wiki needs. There's far more material available than I'd imagined on the incident, which is a good thing, but I don't want to try and summarize or reconcile all that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the section (which describes a maritime disaster within spitting distance of the Titanic) deserves to be expanded prior to GA nomination, based on criteria 3a. But I'm not the official reviewer and Wiki is meant to be a collaborative effort. I will do what I can to expand this section of the article as I have time. Best, Buttonwillowite (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Expanded. I'll work on this some more later. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait until you're done before I comment, but remember that blog posts are inherently unreliable although the source to which they often referred to in that extended discussion may very well be RS. So I don't think that you're going to find an RS that will link the supposed wreck to Corregidor and I don't think that I'd call wrecksite.eu RS. You're also going to have problems with all the published memoirs, etc. as they're primary sources which have their own issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that there doesn't seem to be any reliable sourcing on the location of the wreck. I was planning to rely mainly on Gordon, since it is a recently published secondary source that gives a pretty full account of the situation, with some Hartendorp and others sprinkled in when appropriate. Are these sources objectionable to you? (I'm not stuck on that quote btw, I'm open to something else.) Buttonwillowite (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

They're fine. I've tweaked the text a bit to conform to the Manual of Style and took out the subsections since I thought they looked rather odd next to the large quote box. Still not sure that we need to detail the passengers, but I can live with that. Also not sure where to put the note about the possibility that she struck I-124's mine outside the Army minefield.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate this exchange has caused improvements to the article but I'd prefer to complete the GAR once it's complete or near-complete. I intend to keep the GAR open as long as necessary, but could you please ping me when no substantial changes to the prose are expected so I could proceed? Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm done, but let's see what Buttonwillowite has to say about my changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy with work. I'll set a couple hours aside tomorrow. Your changes look fine to me.Buttonwillowite (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume the above issue is by now settled, so I'll proceed with formal GAR below:

• Image review (captions, licences) turned up no issues (no action required)
• Checklinks reports no problems with the article (no action required)
• No DAB links found (no action required)
• No duplicate links found (no action required)
• Referencing appears to be in order (no action required)

• In "SS Engadine was laid down by William Denny and Brothers at their Dumbarton, Scotland shipyard as a fast packet for the South East and Chatham Railway's Folkestone-Boulogne run.", I would like to have link to Packet boat article - I had no idea what a packet was and had to look it up. I assume most casual (possibly all non-expert) readers would feel the same way.
  • Linked as fast packet in the lede. Do you think that I should link it again?
    • I'd link it. WP:OVERLINK allows that - and even if no major gain is achieved there's no harm to the article itself.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• In "It has been estimated that 900-1,200 lost their lives." the range should employ an endash.
  • Indeed.

This actually concludes the review - the article is quite good as is, just the one and a half nitpicks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sons of Our Empire film - HMS Engadine

How do we determine what the film is about?

Sons of Our Empire: Film of the Royal Naval Air Service including HMS Engadine on the Firth of Forth about August 1916.

A significant chunk is devoted to the vessel and it's seaplane activities (09:28 - 12:59), and the last 5 mins are devoted to submarine E23 - the link can't go under Harwich as the film of Engadine is taken on the Forth.80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going by the official description in the link you gave:

Object description

The British battle-cruiser squadron base at Rosyth, July-August 1916.

Full description

I. (Reel 3) The Royal Naval Air Service at Felixstowe. First their marching band. Then aircrew running a Curtiss H.2 flying boat, possibly one of the first two purchased from the Curtiss company, out of its hangar for launch. Note that the Anzani engines are running. This is followed by the prototype Porte F.1. These and other seaplanes in the air, including a Sopwith Baby. The Felixstowe (?) practises bomb runs

From this, the main subject of the film - or at least of this reel - appears to be aeroplanes. Your claim that it is "devoted to the vessel and..." appears to be incorrect, in that it is officially said to be devoted to a marching band and some aeroplanes. On that basis the ship is incidental to the film. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Appears is not enough to persuaded me, neither is the volume of the text in the IWM description - what do the captions on the film state? The film is not entirely devoted to aircraft.80.229.34.113 (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The burden is on you to persuade the rest of us that the material adds significantly to the subject, not the other way round. If you can gain consensus that the film content is as relevant as you claim and is not as officially described, then you have a case. Until then, you don't. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Lets start by basing debate on the full facts rather that a distortion by quoting the Full description in full:

Full description

I. (Reel 3) The Royal Naval Air Service at Felixstowe. First their marching band. Then aircrew running a Curtiss H.2 flying boat, possibly one of the first two purchased from the Curtiss company, out of its hangar for launch. Note that the Anzani engines are running. This is followed by the prototype Porte F.1. These and other seaplanes in the air, including a Sopwith Baby. The Felixstowe (?) practises bomb runs against a partly sunken wreck. The Porte F.1 and a Short 184 are brought in by tugs. Commodore Caley and Flight-Commander Porte pose in a group with Commander Lynes. The seaplane carrier HMS Engadine launches a Short 184, which flies on patrol and returns to the ship. Some of the seaplanes stunt flying. II. The submarine service. E.23 is loaded with torpedoes, and moves off surfaced, submerges, surfaces and fires her 12-pounder, before returning to the base and being dry docked.81.149.141.199 (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the whole thing. I expect the shortened version I saw was a consequence of my restricting JavaScript in my web browser. But it doesn't change my case: the mention of HMS Engadine is not central enough to the description to warrant a link here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Followed by the captions of the time from the Film, in full:

SONS OF OUR EMPIRE Part 3

GLIMPSES OF THE BRITISH NAVY IN WAR-TIME

These pictures were taken after the Jutland Battle.

With the Royal Naval Air Service.

The R.N.A.S. on Parade

Planning patrol - reconnaissance Duty.

The Alarm - Getting out a Seaplane.

Arming Seaplane

Seaplane leaving on Patrol Duty.

In the Air.

Bomb dropping.

Returning to Airsheds.

Commodore Caley, RN., and Flight Commander Porte, R.N.A.S. returning from a flight.

Commodore Caley, RN., and Flight Commander Porte, R.N.A.S and Commander Lynes, RN.

Mascot of the R.N.A.S.

H.M.S. "Engadine" the Seaplane Ship from which a Pilot left and first sighted the German Fleet before the Battle of Jutland.

Flying over Destoyers.

Seaplane returning to H.M.S. "Engadine".

Pictures taken 6,000ft. up.

Looping the Loop.

The Submarine Service.

Lowering Torpedo into Submarine E23. (10 days after this picture was taken she torpedoed and sunk German Dreadnought of the Nassau Class.)

Leaving the Base.

Under Way.

Submerging.

Emerging and firing 12-pounder.

Returning to Base.

In Dry Dock.81.149.141.199 (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Based solely on the captions, in my view some distinct themes emerge:

Empire

The British Navy

The Submarine Service, The Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS)

The Battle of Jutland

Submarine E23, Seaplanes, HMS Engadine, Caley and Porte

The IWM summary is a helpful museum guide to the contents of the film, but in my opinion should not be relied on for editorial decisions as it's written about 100 years after the event. The original material is paramount, the nearest to an official description of the film is the captions and those should be seen as part of the whole. I would recommend scrutinising the contents (as if you were an officer of the Imperial German Navy!).81.149.141.199 (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)