Talk:Peter Hammersley

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Dumelow in topic GA Review

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk09:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • ... that Spam played a key part in the design of the urinals on the Royal Navy's Swiftsure-class submarines? Nickname: "His obvious nickname, "Ham", which was in short supply in wartime, was changed to "Spam", after the tinned processed meat." Urinals: "In Skipjack there had been urinals back aft, but none in Dreadnought: Hammersley insisted that the design be modified, and the space was always known as Spam's Folly." from: "Rear-Admiral 'Spam' Hammersley, engineer officer of Britain's first nuclear submarine – obituary". The Telegraph. 17 February 2020.

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 10:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC).Reply

  •   Review: The article is new enough, big enough, well written and referenced, nominated timely. No copyvios found. The hook is interesting and cited. QPQ was done. I have to admit, I was hooked by the hook. Since April 1 is past, I recommend this go in the last position of the day's DYKs, generally reserved for oddball or intriguing hooks. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Rear Admiral" hyphenation

edit

Interesting article thanks. The article starts with "Rear-Admiral" but has "Rear Admiral" in the infobox and "rear admiral" in the text (lower case OK in that case though). Outside the article text, one reference has "Rear-Admiral" but the category has "rear admirals". The Rear admiral (Royal Navy) article is not much help in this regard as it also uses both versions with/without the hyphen and its "See also" section includes other articles titled "Rear-Admiral ..." (should these be "Rear admiral ..."?). Is there a "correct" Royal Navy usage (modern era), or can the article text at least be made internally consistent? Thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

After reviewing the article more closely I've gone for un-hyphenated in the article text, but there is still a lot of inconsistency in its use throughout Wikipedia which doesn't look good IMHO.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi RLO1729, thanks for your improvements to the article. You are correct, it should be unhyphenated in modern Royal Navy usage. Historically it has been hyphenated though (see Rear-Admiral of the United Kingdom or Rear-Admiral of the Blue). Other navies vary in their usage - Dumelow (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA nomination

edit

@Dumelow: Hi, I'd say the article could now be nominated for GA review but thought you should have first option to start the process. What do you think? Cheers,  ~ RLO1729💬 01:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi RLO1729, it's been a while since I put anything through a GAN so I may be a bit rusty; more than happy to assist and deal with any comments if you want to nominate. This article is on my list of 40+ articles I think can pass GA but haven't got around to nominating (I've been in more of a new article frame of mind recently), you're more than welcome to take a look through those also if you want to nominate any and I will help to get them up to scratch - Dumelow (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK, will do – thanks. :)  ~ RLO1729💬 06:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dumelow: I've added a few details from a brief biography in the Staffordshire Sentinel, 20 October 1988. If you can access it (British Newspaper Archive), I'd be grateful if you would add any further details you find relevant to the article. Thanks,  ~ RLO1729💬 15:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

No access unfortunately, if you like you could email me a copy? Otherwise I'll trust that you've picked up anything useful! - Dumelow (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Can't see how to add attachments using the Wikipedia email contact form, so (unless I'm missing something) if you email me first I'll reply with the attachment. :)  ~ RLO1729💬 01:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also, the career summary details in the Who's Who source I've added differ from some of the obituary information in terms of years/vessels etc. If you are able to access it (only UK library card needed), it would be great if you could suggest what might need to be revised please. Thanks,  ~ RLO1729💬 04:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
What an excellent find! I've been through and updated with the new information and resolved the inconsistencies - Dumelow (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've added a little more detail from that Sentinel article also, thanks for sending it - Dumelow (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Hammersley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'll take this on Eddie891 Talk Work 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks Eddie891. I look forward to seeing your review.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for the number of edits made since nomination; in looking for additional sources to ensure notability I've found new information that has necessitated some revision of the article.  ~ RLO1729💬 05:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK, I think we're good to go whenever you are Eddie891. Thanks!  ~ RLO1729💬 13:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
RLO1729 and Dumelow I'm planning on getting to this tomorrow morning (EST) Eddie891 Talk Work 23:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

That's it for a first pass from me, nice work on this one. Most comments are minor issues, feel free to discuss any further. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your helpful and constructive comments. Just a few issues remaining (underlined) which I will sort out tomorrow (Australian time). Cheers,  ~ RLO1729💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've addressed the remaining items (and removed the underlining), please review. Thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Dumelow: Hi, would you also review all my edits above please? Thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi RLO1729, excellent work. I have no issues with any of your edits - Dumelow (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Eddie891: I've made a few additional minor edits that can been seen in the article edit history. Please let me know if anything needs attention. Thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
RLO1729, just a few referencing things:
Sorry Eddie, these were my errors. I've fixed the ref (it was the following page). I think it best to use the date the promotion was actually granted (gazetted) as the seniority was granted as a mark of recognition after the fact: he wouldn't have had the uniform and privileges of the new rank from that time. The seniority counted for pay rises, pensions and position in the line of command. I've added notes to the article giving seniority dates. I've deleted the "three civilians" bit, I don't think it adds anything - Dumelow (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Dumelow, Seems like a gap in our coverage on Wikipedia is Military seniority given that there's United States military seniority... Anyways, this article is comprehensive, well written, reasonably illustrated, referenced, and otherwise meets the GA criteria. I'm happy to promote. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Eddie891, thanks again for a very helpful and constructive review, a pleasure working with you. Thanks also to Dumelow for an excellent article that only needed minimal polishing to bring to GA standard. Cheers. :)  ~ RLO1729💬 13:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks both, it's been a pleasure to work on this - Dumelow (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply