Talk:HMS Hampshire (1903)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Hampshire (1903)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 17:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   " commander-in-chief of the China Station, to destroy the German radio station at Yap together with" - it seems like that should have been split after "the China Station" and that something like "She was ordered..." should be inserted there.

   I am prone to string a few too many facts into one sentence. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images both check out.

7. Overall:

   'Not much here to pick on, just that one sentence that reads funny to me. Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.

Looks good, passing now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggested update to casualty figures.

Hello. Apologies if this does not fit with the usual format and method of referencing - still new to this system. I'd like to draw your attention to recent research by myself and others which has revealed that the previously accepted figure of 655 crewmen as HMS Hampshire's complement is well short of the actual number on board on 5 June 1916. The figure of 655 was published by many newspapers at the time and is most likley derived from the figure given in contemporaneous editions of Jane's Fighting Ships. A total of 737 lives were lost, 12 survivors. Kitchener and party totalled 14 men, and the number of crew lost was 723 out of 735. This is based on detail gathered by myself and others from various sources including the Commonwealth War Graves Commission via cwgc.org, and by examination of primary sources held at The National Archives, Kew (e.g. ADM 116/1526 HMS Hampshire Sunk 5th June 1916 - Casualties). Our list of crewmembers matches (in number at least, although we have corrected a few spellings) the list of casualties and survivors compiled by Don Kindell and available at www.naval-history.net/xDKCas1916-06Jun.htm Don Kindell's list of Kitchener's party is not far off - he has the right number of individuals as 14, albeit not all named and one mis-named. I discovered that what must have been a misreading of initial reports that Henry SURGUY-SHIELDS should be two separate individuals, namely Henry SURGUY (Kitchener's valet) and William SHIELDS (Fitzgerald's valet), the latter corresponding to the unnamed 'personal servant' in Kindell's list. The other two unnamed individuals were D.C.BROWN and F.P.WEST (also valets and therefore not clerks as Kindell states).

To better remember the loss of those aboard HMS Hampshire, we (Orkney Heritage Society) raised funds and erected a new wall next to the Kitchener Memorial, engraved with the names of all 737 men lost. For more detail on the project, see www.hmshampshire.org

Thanks and kind regards Fine Hid (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)