Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Boreas (H77)

< 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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Boreas (H77)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Thatoneweirdwikier (talk)

HMS Boreas (H77) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

(Note: This is my first ever A-Class nomination.)

This article is about the British B-Class destroyer Boreas, who was built in 1930 and involved in many deployments across Europe. She was eventually transferred to the Greeks and renamed Salamis before she was scrapped a few years later. I have been working on this article for over a month and I hope you can consider it an A-Class article. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 09:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm

edit
Why I shouldn't edit late at night

* The lead is incredibly lacking. It is just too short (five sentences) to be the lead for an A-Class article of this length

  • "Coventry-class sixth-rate frigate" MOS:SEAOFBLUE, three wikilinks in a row. (also in infobox)
  • The image in the main part of the article breaks over a section line, if it's moved further down it'll probably fit better
  • " that year at the Admiralty yards" - Link to Admiralty if that's the correct links
  • Consider linking the specific types of wood
  • Footnote a should probably have a period at the end, as it is a complete sentence
  • "Flaws in her design were apparent even at this early stage; in December 1757 Captain Boyle advised Admiralty that the fir planks adjacent to the hatchways were already badly worn, as were the strakes along the hull." - I'd recommend replacing the semicolon with a colon and then adding a comma after 1757
  • "captured off Louisbourg" - Link Louisbourg
  • "the recapture of the snow Muscliff, the sloop Dolphin, and the prize sloop Selleri" - Link the applicable ship types. I, for one, have never heard of the ship class "snow"
  • " In November 1762 Boreas was paid head money" - Comma after 1762 and is there a way to link/explain what "head money" is? Also link privateers here, instead of at the later mention
  • Link Admiral to the article about the rank in the British Navy
  • Some of the ships mentioned don't have the ship type included. If it's known, it should be included.
  • The location of that further information banner strikes me as very odd
  • "French fire disabled Boreas aloft" - Wouldn't it work to say that Boreas had its rigging/sails damaged, if that's correct? Try to cut down on the unexplained nautical jargon, as it can't be assumed that the reader will understand
  • "The French 20-gun corvette Valeur, struck to Lively" - Odd place for a comma. Also, link Striking the colors if that's what's meant
  • "cornered the King's frigate" - Another jargon thing. This is a French frigate right? Is there a way to reword this, I find it confusing.
  • " cut out the privateers Vainquer and Mackau " - Are these two French? And what does cut out mean in this context
  • The Fate section is very short, it can be merged into the service history section
  • The references to Winfield are in several different styles, they should be standardized.

I'm willing to discuss/retract any of these, especially since some of the technical terms in here went over my head. This one needs some work, but that's normal for a first-time ACR (my first ACR needed a lot of work). I'll give it another pass through once these are addressed. Hog Farm Bacon 05:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

trout Self-trout - I reviewed HMS Boreas (1757). I'll try to get to the correct one soon. Lol. Hog Farm Bacon 05:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short description of "ship" can probably be made a little longer, about 40 characters is the target
    • Added.
  • Rohwer is in the bibliography but is not used. Move to further reading or remove
    • Removed.
  • Was it part of a class?
    • B-class. I've added it in the body.
  • The namesake needs cited. It can't be implied, especially since there's the possibility it was named after a previous ship
    • I think the text around ref 10 covers it.
  • "Her service in the Mediterranean was uneventful until shortly before she returned home when Boreas evacuated civilians at the start of the Spanish Civil War in July 1936" - This sentence reads awkward to me. Can it be rephrased?
    • Rephrased.
  • " Nationalist heavy cruiser Baleares" - MOS:SEAOFBLUE, three links in a row
    • Reworded.
  • Is there a reason the body cuts into WWII without stating that there was a war on?
    • Changed the wording a bit – hope that's what you were looking for.
  • Is there any further detail about Boreas' role in Operation Husky that can be added?
    • After doing some digging, I don't think there is, unfortunately.

This one's in much better shape than the 1757 Boreas article. Hog Farm Bacon 15:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, you may need that trout again. Does "Comments Support by Hog Farm" at the top of this section indicate support for promotion, opposition, or a complete inability to make up your mind? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Gog the Mild: - I'm honestly not sure. I'd supported, but then some more stuff came up later about Operation Husky participation suggesting there was information available that could be used to expand. Still not clear if that's all the detail known, or if the source the nominator is hunting for has necessary information. So I'm noncommital at this point. Hog Farm Bacon 20:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm: That's fine. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

edit

Parsecboy, would you mind clarifying what you mean by a "Commons category"? Thanks very much. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 07:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Great work on this so far, and welcome to Milhist ACR. A few comments from me:

Lead and infobox
  • for "enforcing the arms blockade", link Non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War
    • Added.
Body
  • "Boreas was one of the nine B-class destroyers which was built for the Royal Navy in the late 1920s."
    • Removed.
  • "The ships were mainly constructed due to World War I experience indicating that destroyers needed to be multi-role vessels, capable not only of torpedo attacks but also anti-submarine warfare and minesweeping. To achieve all of these capabilities, larger vessels than the British destroyers of World War I were required."
    • Replaced.
  • for Japanese link Imperial Japanese Navy
    • Added.
  • link capital ship and cruiser
    • Added.
  • When a ship class is named for a member of the class, the class name is italicized. So, Fubuki-class destroyers, this can be done automatically by using the sclass- template, ie {{sclass-|Fubuki|destroyer|0}}
    • Added.
  • "These displaced" and use a convert template for 1,750 long tons ie {{cvt|1750|LT|t|lk=inshp}} and try to be consistent with displacements within an article, so use {{cvt|1200|t|LT|order=flip}}
    • I believe this has already been fixed.
  • use {{sclass2-|V and W|destroyer|0}} destroyers, Template:sclass2- is for hyphenated but not italicised ship classes
  • link arms race
    • Where?
  • drop the link to displacement (ship) as you will have already linked it earlier
    • Removed.
  • if you use standard load (which is a redirect) you will avoid flagging a duplicate link to displacement (ship), same as deep load
    • Done.
  • state how many turbines
    • Added.
  • for the shp conversion, add |lk=on to link kW per the infobox
    • I think what I've done is right.
  • specify that the main guns were two forward and two after and that they were superfiring
  • were the main guns in turrets or behind gunshields?
    • I can't seem to find any sources that mention this information.
  • say the AA guns were single mounts
  • where were the TTs located?
    • See above.
  • "shortly after World War II began"
  • "By October 1940, the ship's AA armament washad been increased"
    • Done.

Down to Construction and service. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "After a refit at Portsmouth that lasted until 26 September, she conducted multiple patrols off the coast of Spain in 1937 and 1938 as part of the United Kingdom's policy of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War." and delete the later reference to non-intervention
    • Added and removed appropriately.
  • suggest "a heavy cruiser belonging to the Spanish Nationalists"
    • Replaced.
  • "royal tour of Scotland"
    • Changed.
  • "In September of 1939"
    • Removed.
  • "she was lightly damaged by German bomb splinters on 19 January"
    • Replaced.
  • "after which she rejoined"
    • Added.
  • Eeastern Atlantic
    • Changed.
  • "Ssiege of Malta"
    • Replaced.
  • "in preparation for Operation Husky" did she participate? This needs to be included here to support the statement in the lead
  • add a main template at the top of the Description section
  • "loaned to the Royal Hellenic Navy on 10 February 1944" good to add the year immediately after changing sections
    • Added.
  • link training ship
    • Done.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose - Source review

edit
  • Lest I be accused of a secret bias, I'll state it up front, I was the GA nominator many years ago.
  • Alphabetise the bibliography.
    • I believe it's already alphabetised.
  • Put all of Jordan into title case.
    • Removed the paragraph where he is used.
  • Be consistent if you're going to abbreviate states or not.
    • Which states are you referring to?
  • Do not abbreviate Publishing
    • Unabbreviated.
  • Add author links for Friedman, Lenton and Whitley
    • Added.
  • Add the subtitle for Whitley
    • Would you kindly clarify?
      • The title is missing it's subtitle. You can find it by going to Worldcat via by clicking on the ISBN.
        • Added.
  • Jordan does not support cites #2 and 3. Page 273 is a simple chart comparing late 1920s destroyers from multiple nations and makes no mention of the British reasoning behind the development of the As and Bs, much less the two prototypes. Page 281 covers Italian designs of the period.
    • Removed the paragraph.
  • As a general rule I disagree with Parsecboy and do not put material relating to the design history of a ship class into that ship's article as I believe that it's best suited for the class article. The ship article needs to focus on the activities of that ship with the description providing considerably less detailed information than the class article. All that said, I'm opposing because this first paragraph is almost completely wrong about the development history of the As and Bs as the British response to the super-destroyers fielded by the other major seapowers was the Tribal class, not the As and Bs. Either get it right or delete it, I don't care which. And the one of nine sentence should be consolidated with the opening sentence of the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • Now to transition to the completeness aspect as I skimmed over quite a bit those many years ago.
  • You need to cover the primary difference between the A and B classes. It's covered in Jordan.
  • What was the 12th Destroyer Flotilla doing in April and May 1940? Were its ships participating in the Norwegian Campaign, or were they further south on convoy escort duty?
    • According to this website, Boreas was part of the 19th Destroyer Flotilla for this campaign. However, this doesn't look like much of a reliable source to me. I'll keep researching.
      • Good idea, I've personally found too many mistakes in those ship activity pages to believe them a reliable source, as tempting as they are.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems as though Boreas was only with that flotilla for six weeks, so I can't imagine she did much in that time. That's just an inference though.
          • Rohwer might be able to help with that, but that's a big might as he tends to focus on interesting events. Probably worth checking http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/ as well which should list any convoy escort missions that she might have been doing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've been spending the past few days trying to find anything related to this specific Boreas on the site – all I can find are a few vague mentions. I'm not even sure she's registered on the site. As before, apologies for my inactivity, will probably be more active in the next few weeks until this review is complete.
  • Was the ship damaged at Millwall by hit and run raiders or during the Blitz? Add some context here.
  • A link is available for the Type 286 radar although it goes to a list.
    • Added.
  • What did the 18th Destroyer Flotilla do at Freetown and what did Boreas do when she returned to Freetown in 1943
    • Again, all I can find is from this website. I'll continue to look.
  • What did the ship do during Husky?
    • I removed all mentions of Husky, as I couldn't find any reliable sources mentioning Boreas' involvement.
    • I will research this further.
      • There's probably a mention in Rohwer covering this; if you don't have access to it, you'll need to get it because just deleting the reference means that you'll fail the completeness criteria. This isn't something optional like the background coverage that I dislike and others prefer. Generally, you need to have access to just about every source listed in the bibliography if you're going to nominate articles for A-class or higher reviews.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like the only way to get your hands on it is to purchase it. I'll get it through Amazon AbeBooks. @Sturmvogel 66: Just to check so I don't waste my money: is this the right one?
        • Hmm, don’t think the ping worked. Let me try again. Sturmvogel 66, please see above.
Sorry, I thought the book was listed in the bibliography already. Rohwer, Jürgen (2005). Chronology of the War at Sea 1939–1945: The Naval History of World War Two (Third Revised ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-119-2. Dunno where you're based, but there are copies available in the UK and Australia, so you shouldn't need to buy it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review both images are appropriately licensed and the captions are ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nigel Ish

edit
It's been well over two months since @Thatoneweirdwikier: made any edits to this article. It's time to archive this nom so he can address these issues at his leisure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMS_Boreas_(H77)&oldid=984552701"