Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Belfast (C35)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 14:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Belfast (C35)

edit
Nominator(s): IxK85 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been a stable GA for some time, and because I believe it meets the criteria. IxK85 (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments It's great to see such a detailed article on this famous warship. I think that it's close to A class, but needs a bit more work to get there:
    • Some material in the 'Design' section isn't covered by citations
    • Given that the ship's pre-war service only lasted for four weeks, it doesn't really warrant it's own section - I'd suggest including this with the coverage of her wartime service
    • "She was now responsible for the hazardous task of escorting Arctic convoys to the Soviet Union, operating from Scapa Flow and bases in Iceland." is an over-statement given that she was one of many ships engaged in this. It also needs a reference.
    • Did Belfast take part in any operations between the Battle of the North Cape and Operation Tungsten, and between that operation and the invasion of Normandy? - I presume that she escorted convoys and/or undertook training
    • "On 6 August she sailed for the UK to pay off and recommission, and arrived back at Sasebo on 31 January 1951." needs a reference
    • The notes need to be supported by references Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I think most should be straightforward to deal with:
  • Design - will check.
  • Agree pre-war service can be integrated with Second World War.
  • Agree as to the over-statement; was written with the implication in mind of joint responsibility rather than sole responsibility, but that can easily be made clear.
  • No significant operations according to Wingate, this gap can be quite simply filled in.
  • Sasebo reference - can be fixed by additional reference to Wingate p.81.
  • Notes - at the time I wrote them I wasn't aware of the template that enables references within notes, but I can sort that out shortly.
IxK85 (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up:
  • On re-reading the Design section and looking at the sources, I thought the text was a bit confused and unclear; have rewritten it. It ought to be adequately referenced now.
  • I think all the rest are now fixed, apart from the footnote about Admiral Higgins. As the identification of Higgins in particular is not essential, I think this footnote can probably be removed. (The nearest I've found to a source for the 'straight-shooting ship' comment is this November 1950 edition of the Naval Review.)
IxK85 (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can think of a few minor points to improve the prose and a few minor things that could use a small amount of elucidation, and I'll try to return to list them, but I think it's A-class currently. The Land (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Please do not mix templated and untemplated citations as it results in different formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you write "p." or "page"
  • {{cite news}} has a |issue= parameter, so you don't need to put issue information inside the |id= parameter. Eisfbnore • talk 03:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all references are now templated but would appreciate you pointing out any I've missed.
  • I think the "p." vs "page" discrepancy is sorted
  • Am now using the Cite Newspaper/The Times template for the Times references.
--IxK85 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • This is the core of an A-class article, but there's a lot on the technical side that is missing.
  • Very little info in the infobox is sourced. Either a cite needs to be added to the infobox or several paragraphs of description need to be added (my preference). Something along the line of the one in the HMS Jamaica (44) article would be perfectly acceptable.
  • The changes and additions of the light AA armament, fire-control equipment and electronics, w/ links, must be covered, including dates as much as can be ascertained.
  • The Watton book has a revised 2003 edition. I'm not sure what the differences are, but I have a copy of the latter if need be.
  • What aviation facilities did she have when built?
  • How many propeller shafts?
  • Use a n-dash between dates.
  • What makes Mason reliable?
  • Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles and update titles of your refs accordingly
  • If you have a title in your bibliography, there's no need to fully quote the info in the references section.
  • Cite 61 was broken when I tried it.
  • AFAIK, the ship's 4-inch guns were not replaced by anything when modernized in the 1950s, but two turrets were removed
  • If you've linked to a gun's article, you don't need to put a conversion in the link.
  • Always surprising to see how little actual time this ship spent in service. Good job covering her activities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 61 - since removed
  • Gun conversions in links - removed
  • N-dashes - done
  • Full references - renamed in bibliography and removed from footnotes.
Some further fixes/additions to follow. - IxK85 (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anti-aircraft and electronics fit is now covered and referenced. IxK85 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added a few paragraphs of description along the lines of the Jamaica article.
  • Aviation facilities and propeller shafts are now detailed.
  • Is Mason not considered reliable? In any case replaced the references to Mason with refs to Wingate.
  • Will add some more citations to the infobox.
I believe all of the above points have now been addressed. IxK85 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a query regarding the infobox and about what information is normally included for ships. Leaving aside the need for some more citations, which will be coming along shortly, how much information is actually needed? For instance, Belfast's weapons fit changes several times, and quite substantially, between 1939, 1942, 1945 (twice), 1948 and 1959. Her electronic suite also changes several times, the size of her complement varies by about 200 across her service life, and her physical characteristics change too. Looking at other good quality articles, most only give one set of armament (for example), but the FA USS Wisconsin (BB-64) gives 1943 and 1983. Would appreciate guidance on this. IxK85 (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, but the 1944–45 refit needs to mention that her aircraft and their catapult were removed during this refit. As were two of the 4-inch gun turrets. Her torpedo tubes were removed during the late '50s refit. See Watton, pp. 15–16. Fix these things and my issues are resolved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I normally just list the armament as built and detail all the changes in the main body. Keeps things simple. Remember that the infobox is only supposed to be for a quick summary of the ship and her description, not chock-full of informative nuggets.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback - I think the points you raise (4-inch guns, aircraft and catapult, torpedos) are now addressed. - IxK85 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments HMS Belfast is a museum ship, originally a Royal Navy light cruiser, permanently moored in London on the River Thames and operated by the Imperial War Museum. I suggest changing the lead sentence to one that emphasise the ship's role during Royal Navy service. The current sentence gives me an impression that the ship only had a short service life with the RN, with the rest spent as a museum piece. If I'm wrong about this, please indicate so. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. As nominator, thought I ought to say I'm going to be away for a week, but will address the comments raised when I get back. About the comment above; I think it's best as is. Belfast is a museum ship at present, and has been a museum longer than she was a commissioned warship IxK85 (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick comments: there are some references in the lead to statements not so controversial that one would expect them to need referencing there. I think they're all covered in the main text. Secondly, I think the Design section could be expanded. There's quite a big list in the infobox and most of it is not covered in the main text. HMS New Zealand (1911) would be an example with lots more technical information; I wouldn't think you had to go that far but some idea of what the ship actually was would be better. For example, the size of the ship. The Admiralty's requirements sentence is a good start, but did the ship exceed 32 knots? That sort of thing. I say this all under the impression that such information is available, since I imagine it is. If not, obviously that's a different matter. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the gist of your comments have now been addressed, but do point out anything you think requires further detail. IxK85 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed with regards to the technical detail; however, the lead still has several citations. Are you sure they're necessary? Now leaning towards support. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they can probably all be removed, with the exception of the cite supporting the 'quarter of a million visitors a year' statistic, which is probably worth keeping due to its more contemporary and changeable nature compared to the more historical facts that are currently cited. Would you agree? IxK85 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree – a quick review of WP:LEAD by me ascertained that the article fits the general rule that the lead is considerably more vague and thus less likely to need referencing and the information is contained elsewhere. I think keeping that one reference is a good idea – it's very much less vague and may become out-of-date. I'll consider my position if I get some time. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for A1/A2/A3. I'd fully support, 'cept we haven't had much comment from copyeditor/prose examiners and I think it's important to get the nod from them. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
In the 1939–1942: Commissioning, prize capture, mining, and repairs section you have the Second Cruiser Squadron and 2nd Cruiser Squadron - I believe 2nd is correct and it should be linked even if it produces a red link, which are encouraged etc Also later in teh article the other squadrons should be linked
Operation Hipper, is linked to the ship if anything it should link to the operation
Radar Type 284 is linked but Type 283, Type 285, Type 282, Type 273, Type 251, Type 281, Type 242 and Type 252 sets are not
Same with Type 270 echosounder
Naval ranks need linking Captain, Rear-Admiral etc
Tirpitz was the German Navy's last surviving heavy unit. needs a cite
Mixture of styles when using numbers - injured 21 of her crew and the strike force and later escorted by eighty fighters
An intervention by the King eventually prevented Churchill from going. Which King should be linked or named
to recover a crashed enemy MiG-15 jet fighter and Belfast was hit by enemy fire - Enemy is POV
Mixture of referencing style cite short used Watton (1985). p. 12. etc and long cites Imperial War Museum HMS Belfast. London: Imperial War Museum. 2009. pp. 6–7. ISBN 9781904897934. even the last is not consistent as there are several examples like Imperial War Museum HMS Belfast. 2009. pp. 50–57. also Diprose, Graham; Craig, Charles; Seaborne, Mike is in the long format

Some small point well done good job.Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second vs 2nd Cruiser Squadron is now fixed, and linked to an article on cruiser squadrons in general, since that probably more informative than linking to List of squadrons and flotillas of the Royal Navy.
  • No article exists on Operation Hipper; linking to the ship seemed more informative and explains the name of the exercise.
  • Tirpitz now cited.
  • The King is linked in the previous paragraph.
  • Is 'enemy' really considered POV? In this case it strikes me as a useful distinction, at least in the 'hit by enemy fire' case, between being hit by enemy fire or accidental 'friendly fire'.
  • Naval ranks are now linked on their first occurrence.
  • Radar sets are linked where the relevant list has a section about them. Type 270 is not linked as there is no article on period Royal Navy echosounders; the article on sonar seems the next most relevant.
  • References should now be consistent.
IxK85 (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Japanese Mogami and American Brooklyn class cruisers": Japanese Mogami- and American Brooklyn-class cruisers. Or, put "cruisers" somewhere else if you'd like to drop the hyphens. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a effective": an effective
  • "... Edinburgh subclass, being named ...": Edinburgh subclass, named
  • "Saint Patrick's Day, 17 March 1938": "Saint Patrick's Day, 17 March 1938," ... or at least, there's support for either two commas or none (for appositives in general) in US style guides (see WT:Checklist), but no one has told me yet whether there's support in BritEng style guides. I expect there is.
  • "four Admiralty three-drum oil-fired water-tube boilers ...": I'm not following; what's the name of the boilers?
  • "2-pounder 'pom-pom' guns": perfectly good BritEng orthography, but MOS prefers double quotes; see WP:MOS#Quotation marks.
  • "4.5 inches (110 mm) main armour belt": add "|adj=on" to the convert template.
  • "mounted either side": technically fine, and better in BritEng than AmEng, but "mounted on either side" is a little easier for Brits and a lot easier for Ams (don't quote me on "Ams", I made it up). - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments:
  • Have hypenated Mogami and Brooklyn
  • 'An effective' - done
  • 'subclass, named' - done
  • Saint Patrick's Day - more readable with two commas, I think.
  • They're Admiralty boilers, have re-ordered the sentence to hopefully make that clearer.
  • "pom-poms" - done
  • |adj=on - done
  • 'mounted on' - done. -- IxK85 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "target tug": define it in-text or link it. Tug doesn't say what a target tug is. (Neither does target tug, at least, not the ship type.)
  • "Care and Maintenance": define or link it.
  • "20mm" 20 mm per MOSNUM. On the plus side: quite right not to insert a conversion in the middle of a link, also per MOSNUM.
  • "On 25 December 1943, Christmas Day, ... The next day, 26 December, ...": The readers can probably work that out. I'd delete "26 December".
  • "The strike was launched on 3 April.": I'd combine this short sentence with one of the others, probably the one starting "The bombers scored ...".
  • "am", "a.m.": consistency
  • "('E-boats')": double quote marks
  • "in anger": link to fire in anger
  • That's all for now; I got down halfway, to 1945: Service in the Far East. If you have (or anyone has) a chance to correct these, skim the rest, and fix any similar problems, please mention that here, and I'll have another look. - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • target tug - hopefully now clearer.
  • care and maintenance - have added a clause to say Belfast became Rosyth Dockyard's responsibility
  • 20 mm - done
  • 26 December - done
  • am / a.m. - done (a.m.)
  • "E-boats" - done
  • in anger - done.
Many thanks again - IxK85 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMS_Belfast_(C35)&oldid=1141873565"