Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Princess Royal (1911)

< 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 08:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Princess Royal (1911)

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the five criteria and I'd like to take it to FAC in the not too-distant future. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

HMS Princess Royal was a British battlecruiser built before World War I, the second ship of the Lion class, which were nicknamed the "Splendid Cats".
  • My change was "the Lion class" instead of "her class". "Her class" is common in the first sentence of ships articles, and that has always felt like a reasonable trade-off to me: it's a little bit of an WP:EGG problem, that is, the link is not precisely what it says it is, but OTOH, one of the most important jobs in the first paragraph is not to distract the reader with details so that they can get the main facts quickly. When you're mainly talking about the ship, you don't want to focus on the class. But this article starts focusing on the class right away. I didn't notice a problem when I first read it because I'm so used to "her class" in the first sentence, but when I got to the first sentence past the introduction that talks about the Lion class and wondered what the Lion class was, I felt that we needed something more than we had. Thoughts? This could affect a lot of ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay ... I know we've had this conversation before, and I understand that some of you guys are really happy with the sclass template, and I would have no problem with it at all ... if editors always got the hyphens right. The problem is that they're often wrong (I think everyone's agreed that we don't want a hyphen when "class" is a noun), and because the template shows you an incomprehensible "{{sclass|Moltke|battlecruiser|0}}" in the edit window, proofreaders keep missing the fact that it needs to be fixed. If what you saw in the edit window was "... the first British battlecruisers, the [[Invincible class battlecruiser|''Invincible''-class]].", then the problem would be obvious. Thoughts? These are getting a little tedious; sometimes I have to fix the template 3 times as different editors have different opinions and keep changing the last digit in the template as they reword, getting it wrong every time. There's a general principle here ... you can usually figure out what a Wikipedia article is saying by looking at the edit window, and this is the reason for that ... people can't fix what they can't see. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 'preview' can help with that, which lets you see the problem and fix it. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to preview them myself to see if I've remembered the right digit or not.
  • I may have to start investing in style guides followed by major publishers in other countries ... oh joy. "afterwards" isn't supposed to have an s per AP Stylebook ... anyone want to educate me on matters of British style? - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both spellings are valid according to my dictionary. I wouldn't sweat this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Indefatigables": User:Yoenit dealt with the same issue in the current ACR WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Indiana_class_battleship, and after reading his sources, came to the conclusion that they didn't say "The Indianas" very often and removed it. I'm happy either way, in theory ... it does get tedious saying "the X class, the X class, the X class"; also, if the sources and the crew tended to say this a lot, we're doing our readers a service to mention the terminology. I think the "s" should be italicized, btw, but this is a technical point that I'm not going to argue. All I ask is that you don't assume the reader knows that this means "the Indefatigable-class ships", because it's not as obvious to them as it is to us ... tell them what it means the first time you use it (I made the edit). - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find a suitable link for deep load ... I think I looked at this issue before and can't remember what I did. It's not in the glossary, on Wiktionary, in an article title, or in Displacement (ship). Anyone have a link? - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find an exact definition, but I've added one to the displacement article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I created a redirect so that we can link deep load now. It probably needs linking at first occurrence in any article. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I learned that the Polperro Mile was a Cornish location for speed trials, I figured it was surely notable. But there are only 6 English-language ghits for it (9 in all), and they concern only 2 ships, this one and the HMS Nelson. So I'm wondering if the location deserves a mention ... if it does, we'll need a link, either to Polperro or Polpero Mile. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't add that bit, so I'm not invested. It's a famous location though if you're into British steam warship history and worth an article, or at least part of one that discusses the effects of depth on maximum speed. Nothing that I'm particularly prepared to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll trust you, not everything important has Google links ... I'll change it to "off the coast of Polperro" and link unless we can find something more specific to link to. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a link for Mark II mount (or Mk II or Mk 2). - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? The most important think about the mount, its maximum elevation, is already given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. In that case, we need a good link for mount (the ones we have are crap), and a subtle change in the wording will convey to the reader that that's the important thing about this kind of mount, I'll make the change. Same for Mark Ic. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. Best I can find at the moment is weapon mount, possibly linking to a section. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) *****I don't see the need for any sort of link at all. I've given mount types in virtually everything I've written thus far and nobody's ever complained or asked a question. So why now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If forced to guess, I'd say it's because I'm trying to act like a copyeditor, which means I try to expand the audience that could digest this article ... and even if they do get the gist of what you're saying, would their understanding be improved with a link? For instance, the link I added for breech-loading might add something to their understanding, especially the nice image. It would be nice if we had a link that gave us images of several standard mount types to get the point across ... but I'm not going to fail the article without it, especially since I suck at finding images, I just think it would help. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this gun and one from HMS Lion": I inserted the HMS (or rather, I looked up the secret code from the template that inserts HMS); it was a slight preference because of the possibility of confusion with the Lions. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Battle of Jutland revealed her vulnerability to plunging shellfire": are we talking about the Princess Royal here? I'm confused because the next two paragraphs talk about the HMS Lion ... and is it customary to discuss what happened to sister ships in an article about just the one ship? Did the wartime modifications to Lion have some impact on Princess Royal? - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • During what period was Walter Cowan in command? I think you're right to insert it in the narrative, given the friction that "lists of captains" tends to generate, and I'm not sure where else we can insert it, but we have to find some way to pare down that sentence. Also, "leading ships" in that sentence raises some questions for me ... leading which other ships, and did those ships participate? That sentence needs to lose something, and that's one thing we might be able to drop. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were leading the other two battlecruisers under Beatty's command, New Zealand and Indomitable. See the diagram immediately left. I'm not sure that we need to break up the second sentence as the natural breaking point at the 'and' would read very choppy. OTOH Cowan isn't honestly important here and that clause could be dropped to shorten the sentence.
  • Any objection if I convert am to a.m.? I believe both are common in the British publishing industry, but AP recommends a.m. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. Actually I think it's required by MOS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't gotten an answer at WT:MOSNUM on whether "7:20 a.m. on the 24th ... By 7:35 the ..." is okay, that is, whether you have to repeat the "a.m." every time, as MOS seems to imply. I'll leave this alone for now. I don't think it would be awful with all those "a.m."s, it just wouldn't be my preference. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once is enough, IMO. I have no intention of presuming that the reader is stupid enough not to be able to discern the time of day in a close sequence of events once he's given it. I do mention it once it changes from one to the other.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I start talking about British style, all I'm going to accomplish is to show I don't know anything about British style, but see for instance "quotation marks" in the Times Online style guide and the Guardian's style guide. MOS (usually) requires double quotes. I'll make the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the edits, Graeme. Sturm, one change is that there's only one "Indefatigables" left; if you want to keep one or more of these, then please add at the first occurrence, "or Indefatigable-class ships" or "that is, the Indefatigable-class ships". Also I'm not sure how best to link this: "Two 21-inch (530 mm) submerged torpedo tubes were fitted on the beam; fourteen torpedoes were carried." Would it make sense to use the link and extra description that Graeme added, but move those to where "torpedoes" is now? - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need more experience before I'm comfortable making a call, but Graeme's response at WT:SHIP#(Not) converting units in the name of a gun and the lack of other responses suggests that ships editors aren't all aboard with "He turned in pursuit and reduced her to a flaming hulk" and similar language. I'll keep an eye on this issue. Also, the MOS edit that I mention in that thread probably accomplished something, but it's too early to figure out what exactly ... so in "... 271 13.5-inch shells during the battle, a hit rate of only 0.7%. She also fired two 13.5-inch shrapnel shells ...", do we have to convert? Does the previous link to a particular 13.5-inch gun mean that we can expect the reader to click on the prior link if they want to know the conversion in millimeters/metres? I don't know yet, I'll keep an eye on this too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I've got a specific proposal for this article; let's see how it goes. The first paragraph after the intro says "The Lion-class ships exchanged the 12-inch (305 mm) guns of the older ships for the same number of 13.5-inch (343 mm) guns ...". I can easily support the decision not to go into great detail on the guns here; that can wait for the armament section. But some readers will want to know "which guns?" the first time you bring them up, and the standard way to deal with a situation where some readers want more and some want less is with a link, so they can choose their own path. But we can't do 12-inch guns (linking to the specific guns) per WP:EGG, that is, because we want the reader to trust that links mean what they say and say what they mean (see WYSIWYG for the interface design principle). OTOH, there's nothing wrong with shortening the name to 12-inch Mark X guns (I prefer "Mark" to "Mk" but there are arguments both ways). And once we've linked the guns, anyone who wants to know what that is in metric can just click on the link. We would need to link it one more time, in the armament section where the full name is used, but per my change to MOS and MOSNUM, my guess is we can get by with no conversions to metric for "12-inch" in the text as long as we have those two links, plus the conversions to metric in the infobox ... it's worth a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what to do about the fact that "The Lion class was" can sometimes sound horrible to Brits, and "The Lion class were" can sometimes sound horrible to Americans. My instinct is to avoid the issue and reword where possible. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though File:Jutland1916.jpg is one click away at Battle of Jutland, it was much easier to follow the text with that image in hand; any chance of using all or part of that image over here? - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was confirmed when the destroyer Landrail ...": I don't understand whether it's the presence of the U-boat that was confirmed or the origin of that torpedo that's being confirmed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given that I'm relatively new at A-class review, and per the usual disclaimer, support for a thorough ship article that's fun to read. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
    • alt text could be added to the images per WP:ALT (this is just a suggestion and I don't believe it is an A class requirement anymore);
    • images seem appropriately licenced to me (no action required);
    • why are Refs # 44, 45 and 48 in long form, while all the others are short citations?
      • Fixed
    • in the References section, Ref # 44 needs an endash for the date range "1904-1919";
      • Somebody already fixed that.
        • I'm arguing the point at WT:FAC; I'd prefer we hyphenate for book titles, but that would mean a change to a lot of FACs. If I win, I'll let you guys know. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • some of the ISBNs in the Bibliography have hyphens but others don't. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my comments have been addressed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • There's a citation needed in the Dogger Bank section.
      • Done
    • Images all look good.
    • On that note, is there any possibility of finding more images of the ship?
      • I've exhausted Commons as the only other picture is kinda lame as it in Kronstadt before the war.
    • The paragraphs seem a little "wall-of-text"-ish, but maybe it's just because I'm looking at the article on a different computer.
    • I think there's a bit too much technical stuff for the individual ship article. I can see having this much detail for Queen Mary, which differed from her half-sisters, but isn't this ship essentially the same as Lion? I won't oppose over this, because this is just my style of article construction, and I think we've talked about this before, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
  • The article looks pretty good, once the cn tag is fixed I'll support it for A-class. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns have been addressed, so I'm moving to support. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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_Princess_Royal_(1911)&oldid=368552391"