Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Timeline for aircraft carrier service

Timeline for aircraft carrier service

I intend to attempt to promote this to a Featured List. I have completed the main tasks as I see it for the list and would appreciate any advice about how the article could be improved to make it a suitable FL candidate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input so far. I do not intend to argue about these points, rather I will explain my thoughts about why I did it the way I did if it seems relevent. I understand that the comments are intended to be constructive and I take them as as such. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey

Firsly, with the frequently refreenced books, you are suposed to put the book list in a spearate section and then cite specific pages, like "DANFS, p. 10." and so forth, instead of having over 200 footnotes just linking to a book which probably has hundreds of pages.

More later. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks YM. Where the reference is a book I have done exactly as you decribed. However, with refs like DANFS, NVR and Haze Grey & Underway and so on, I have provided a link to the main web page or in the case of HG&U the main page for the country in question, from which it is easy to find the relevent ship by following the links on that web page. I could convert these all to individual links for each ship, but I thought that that approach would only serve to unnecessarily expand the References section without really providing more information. I look forward to your further thoughts on this. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett

The external links is in the wrong place. Questionable use of colour for active totals in each year. The formatting of these totals changes from cross to downward - how about a mini-table instead? Over detailed - "laid down" "launched" and "commissioned" dates given for each ship - how about just when the batch were ordered and individuals entered service.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graeme. I have moved the external links. I used colour to visually separate the force strength figures from the rest of the time line, since thay are calculated from the information within the timeline itself (the inclusion of these figures was a suggestion by another editor), rather than being something that I sourced from an external reference. I have always been ambiguous about them, as I wonder whether it could be classed as OR. OTOH, the info is from referenced material on the page, so I have left them in. The change in format was for the duration of WWII. This was because each year's set of listing was so long that it is unlikely that any reader would be able to see the previous year's figures and the current one under consideration at the same time and also so I could include the figures for ships sunk and commissioned during the hostilities. I'm not wedded to either the figures or the formatting I have used, I would be interested in what other editors think as well. As for reducing the number of entries for each ship, this could be done, but it would involve a fair amount of work (not a reason not to do it, though). Again, I would be interested to know what others think. Also, thanks for the copyedit on the intro. (Plus I will see if I can source the comment about the size of US air groups.) - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme, I have reworded the sentence that you tagged in the intro. Do you think it still needs a citation? I would think that what it now says was pretty uncontroversial. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harlsbottom

The structure of the article has already been commented on. There are some glaring omissions, for example the Tondern raid and the Revolt of the Admirals. The reference to the Admiralty turning down the Wright Brothers' offer in 1907 is a gross misinterpretation of the truth. The Admiralty actually turned down an offer for the patents to their aircraft, but the designs at the time were of such poor endurance that they would have been worthless for naval aviation. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the info. I will insert an entry for the Tonden raid, but I am not sure about the revolt of the admirals - what date would this go under? It seems to have been a progressive thing over a number of years, which makes it hard to pin down on a timeline. If you think of any other pertinent dates that need to be inserted please let me know, but remember that this is not meant to be a complete history of naval aviation and the non-ship related items are supplementary to the main point of the list. As for the comment about the Admiralty and the Wright Bros, the entry on the timeline is virtually a direct quote from the reference. It is is stated as being "according to legend" and I can confirm that the entry reflects how I heard about it when I served in the RAN Fleet Air Arm back in the 70s and 80s. Like many things, the legend may not be exactly what actually occurred, but I have only reported the legend. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the key section of the message from the First Lord of the Admiralty to the Wright Brothers, dated 7 March, 1907, taken from The Old Flying Days by Charles Cyril Turner, p. 293:

"I have consulted my expert advisers with regard to your suggestion as to the employment of aeroplanes and I regret to have to tell you, after the careful consideration of my Board, that the Admiralty, whilst thanking you for so kindly bringing the proposals to their notice, are of opinion that they would not be of any practical use to the Naval Service."

The key phrase there is "practical use". It was another two years before a plane could fly thirty odd miles across the English Channel. At the time the Admiralty believed that balloons and airships would be of more use to the Navy, and who is to say that they were wrong? --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a footnote with this quotation, I have not removed the original text, because that is how the story is usually related in the Fleet Air Arm as stated in the reference. I think this way it covers both aspects. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully submit that the Australian Naval Aviation Museum is talking out of its behind, but that's not a discussion for Wikipedia: I will raise it with them directly [EDIT: Or I would if the website of "Australia's Museum of Flight" (formerly the Australian Naval Aviation Museum) was working]. I loathe legend being included in most works of history, as in many cases including this one it serves to obscure the truth. Your amendment and note is most welcome, however. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 14:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Let me think about it for a little while. BTW, I have found the following (postal) contact information for the ANAM: Australian Naval Aviation Museum Society, P.O.Box A15 Naval Post Office Nowra, New South Wales, 2540, Australia - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick - will give the website a couple of days to see if it comes online again. If not will use the address you provided. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 02:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the_ed17

God do I hate myself right now...becuase you use this site a lot in the article...but Hazegray was determined to be an unreliable source in a FAC of mine... :/ I have no objection to it being in, say, an A-class article, because I have never seen wrong info there, but I'm decently sure that it won't fly at FL... :( —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up. I would have to say that it was my least favourite reference, but for many countries (and depressingly so for the UK, there are not a lot of other sites around that actually have the info. Oh well, maybe I will have to go and dig up some more copies of Jane's! - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots

I've mentioned this on the talk page of the article, but the list makes no mention of merchant aircraft carriers such as Empire MacAlpine and CAM ships such as Empire Darwin. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified this in the article. Basically these ships are out of scope. Maybe someone else might like to create a similar timeline for those classes, if it seems necessary. I've still got a lot to do with this timeline if I'm going to replace all the Haze Gray references. By the time I've done that I think I will have had quite enough. Nick Thorne ^talk 13:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they are out of scope. An aircraft carrier is a ship that carries (an) aircraft. MAC's at least had the facility for aircraft to land back on the ship. Thus it would seem that a brief mention at least is justified. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to a quick look at the relevant articles in Wikipedia, there were 19 MAC and 35 CAM ships. If we are to include those, surely we would also need to include the escort carriers of which there were 130, since they were actually commissioned naval vessels, unlike the MAC ans CAM ships. Given that the current timeline lists approximately 160 ships and is quite long enough as it is - possible too long - I do not propose to add these ships to the timeline. The line has to be drawn somewhere. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney

Some firsts seem to be missing (or I missed them)

1st Helicopter landing
1st helicopter carrier
1st sunk by enemy action (surface to surface) / (air to surface)
last sunk etc
1st air to air victory from XXXXX

A good article and you can se that a lot of work has gone into - I note you have not included the ordering of HMS Queen LIZ and HMS P.O.W is that because like many of us you do not believe they will begin construction ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim. I'll see if I can look those events up and include them. I have not mentioned the QE class ships because the first entry for any ship I have used throughout has been the keel laying. So far as I am aware, the Poms have not yet cut any steel for these ships. I guess we'll just have to wait and see whether they really do eventuate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]