Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy

Nominator(s): Robert Brukner (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe it substantially fulfils all the criteria, is a meaningful elaboration of the content of the main article Royal Canadian Navy, improves the overall quality of the current body of material about the Canadian Military and deepens a readers understanding of the topic. Robert Brukner (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but this article currently doesn't meet the A-class criteria:

The captions appear to have been taken, with light paraphrasing, from the RCN's website. Aside from being non-neutral (the ancient Iroquois-class destroyer is unlikely to still have "one of the world's most advanced integrated combat control systems", for instance) this also makes the text a copyright violation.
Much of the content is not covered by references
The procurement section looks under-developed Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Thanks Nick. I am addressing these issues now. Please note that I am very new at this, and am unsure if this article is being assessed for AL-class list or A-class article. There seems to be some considerable differences in the approach across various wikiproject groups. I am aiming for A-class article assessment. Robert Brukner (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Welcome Robert ... it would be great to see more articles at A-class and FAC on Canadian military topics. It looks like you've got a lot to offer. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: @Dank: I have revised as per the comments. Thanks again for your direction and support. Robert Brukner (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello again, I'm going to add a few of my own points below on what I think are going to be musts for this article:

First, the drop table below is used by most, if not all, A and FA list articles on ships, they detail not only the name and service of the ship but also the basic features; armament, armour, displacement and propulsion systems of the ship. I believe this is a must include for a list/article of this nature as it includes the necessary basic overview of the ship without going into unnecessary detail, those details are usually covered by the ships own article as it is. Obviously the table can be adjusted as necessary, the article already includes pennant number, builder and fleet as well for example and fate does not apply, yet, as the ships are still in active service. I think I've included the necessary adjustment to make the table sortable as requested in your other A-class review for the Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic) by Nick-D. That table is as below:

Ship	Armament	Armor	Displacement	Propulsion	Service
Ship	Armament	Armor	Displacement	Propulsion	Laid down	Commissioned	Fate

After taking a closer look at similar articles at the A and FA class I've noted down the basic coverage that each article section does; A short background on the class including its design and construction (and any changes that occurred to the design while they were being built, for example the Kronshtadt class battlecruiser of Russia had multiple changes to the turret List of battlecruisers of Russia), their intended duty (in other words why they were built), any combat they'd encountered (not applicable to the article as far as I am aware), and any particularly notable ships from that class and the reason for their notability. An example would be KMS Bismarck for its activities during the second world war.
- Specifically applicable to the Iroquois class is the modifications that have been made to the ship for the Gulf War and also TRUMP (Tribal Class Update and Modernization Project) modifications; re-purposed the ships for air defence rather than anti-submarine, new main weapons and an anti-missile system (Phalanx CIWS) and new more powerful engines to counter the increased weight. Which you mention briefly but don't cover to any real extent.
- The Halifax class has also had some minor modification with additional modifications planned under the HCM which is currently underway and scheduled for completion in 2017? Though I think it may be cancelled due to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
- Generally speaking these points are usually covered in each subsection, noticeably absent however is usually the origins of the class; for example the Halifax class came about from the Canadian Patrol Frigate Project which sought to develop a replacement for the existing destroyers. Note: the linked article is sub-par and I don't recommend using it for any purpose other than reference. A second example would be the procurement of the Kingston-class vessels under the Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel Project. Am sorry forgot to tag my name to it Mr rnddude (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: @Dank: Thank you both for your efforts and advice. I appreciate the enormous effort from Nick to provide detailed advise and recommendations. I totally see where you are coming from. I too reviewed the FA and featured lists earlier. I was unable to find one that deals with the scope that this article does. Featured lists on military topics range from simple lists with almost no value-added content like Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, to highly detailed examinations such as List_of_battlecruisers_of_the_United_States. I had been aiming for the former. I am concerned that the latter approach will create a very long article. As there is no movement towards approval of the article in its current state, I will withdraw the article and rework it along the lines Nick has suggested. Robert Brukner (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.