Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Queen Mary/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:14, 15 March 2012 [1].

HMS Queen Mary[edit]

HMS Queen Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last British battlecruiser completed before World War I began, this ship had only a brief career before she blew up during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. This article had a MilHist ACR last April and I've revised it slightly to meet the FA criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments This article is in good shape, but needs a little bit more work to reach FA class:
    • The para which begins "Queen Mary was slightly larger than her predecessors" doesn't actually compare this ship's dimensions to those of the Lion class
      • The differences in dimensions were fairly trivial, but added up to a significant difference in displacement, which is given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Following complaints from the Fleet" - should 'Fleet' be capitalised?
      • That's how it's given in my source, but I can go either way since it's an implicit proper noun. Like the (US or Royal) Navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's a 'cruising stage'?
    • Was the ship always intended to be an 'orphan', or were others ships of her design planned but not built?
      • She was a singleton as the pattern by that time was to authorize one battlecruiser as part of the tranche of capital ships every year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you add some material explaining this? Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ping: this comment is still outstanding, and is the only reason I haven't moved to 'support' (though I have no objections to the article being promoted in it's current excellent state). Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for, but I added a sentence explaining the above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's exactly what I was looking for :) Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • More generally, details on the decision to build this ship and the selection of the design are needed - these are included in most other FA level articles on warships.
      • Lemme see, but I don't think that there's actually much out there as she was a slightly improved Lion so no major changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command." - of this ship, or the squadron? (the entire section is about the squadron, so it's unclear)
    • Queen Mary is not specifically mentioned in either the 'Battle of Heligoland Bight' or 'Raid on Scarborough' sections. Can anything be said about the ship's role in these battles?
      • I don't think so as she was just conforming to Beatty's movements, but I'll check.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still need to check for anything specific in the raid, but I've checked every source I have access to, including Jellicoe's book on the Grand Fleet and a book on the battle, and no details are available on her activities during Heligoland Bight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (comment only) I know that it's in quite a few articles (many of which are FAs), but I find File:Scheer's illustration of I SG disposition 16 Dec. 1916 en.SVG really difficult to understand as some of the arrows depict distances between ships while other identical arrows show the direction ships were traveling in. The point in time at which these distances were relevant is also needed. I think that this image should be removed until it can be re-worked, but this won't affect my vote in this FAC given how many FAs its currently being used in. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the measurements use hollow squares while ships use solid squares. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...I thought that one colour was for the Germans and the other the British. That this isn't the case is another flaw with the image, but as I said, it's not a deal breaker here. I'd strongly suggest re-working this image though. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Gnangarra

General characteristics section;

  • Queen Mary was slightly larger than her predecessors... doesnt hold up 703ft compared to 700ft, beam of 80ft compared to beam of 88ft, draft of 32 4 compared to 32 5 two of the first three stats when compared are smaller. displacement is larger but height is again smaller 5.92 feet compared to 6. I think it would be better described as similar as the comparisons just dont hold up.
    • I had a typo for her beam, it's 89 feet, not 80. As I said to Nick-D above, those trivial differences added up a significantly greater displacement. Metacentric height is a measure of stability, not size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Armament v Fire control

  • The armament gices the impressionthat asignificant change occurred with The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 20°, although the director controlling the turrets was limited to 15° 21' until prisms were installed before the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 to allow full elevation.(two sources) but when you read the fire control it says 'Queen Mary received her main battery director before the Battle of Jutland in 1916(third source) what happened its as if the change wasnt significant and barely notable. IMHO the fire control needs more detail about process before the change and what affect it had after the change.
  • Fire control information looks like a copy/paste from Lion class battlecruiser yet there it has more detail about the system.
  • see below for detailed thought, remove fire control section

Armour;

  • opens The armour protection given to the Queen Mary was similar than that of the Lions. hmm similar to that maybe than is for where there are comparative differences where as similar is for less distinct difference, combine they just dont read well.

Battle of Heligoland Bight

  • Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command the para starts in AUgust and continues through the battle, so where does the October date come from, why is it significant to the battle?
    • It's not, but otherwise it's a one-sentence paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raid on Scarborough;

  • Queen Mary was refitting in January and February 1915 and did not participate in the Battle of Dogger Bank.[24] looks a little lonely/lost I realise its putitng things in cronological order so maybe its a chance to address the fire control issues in a new section that covers the actual refit and what took place along with absence note from the battle of Dogger Bank.
    • Unfortunately, I do not know exactly when the ship actually received her fire-control directors. It may well have been this refit, but it likely wasn't the only refit that she received before Jutland. It's just the only one that I can document.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jutland;

  • last paragraph maybe used to create an Aftermath type section rather than being tacked onto the end, at the moment the story feels like its just been left hanging.

Beside this the images are PD as the diagram no issues there, otherwise an Interesting read Gnangarra 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies for not getting back here sooner, I've been distracted by Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Perth Foreshore and wont have time until after sunday to give it another detailed look, if my reviewing your responses to my comments are holding it up feel free to tag them as done or unactionable noting I'm unavailable but I've never had FAC that wasnt a positive exercise in collaboration so I'll WP:AGF in your efforts you have my support. Gnangarra 16:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments.
    • I think that "Aftermath" should be its own top-level section, rather than part of "Service", since it deals with a much later time period and a wholly different context.
      • Good idea.
    • "She was refitting during the Battle of Dogger Bank in early 1915" in the lead makes it seem like she was refitted right there in the middle of a battle. The body text makes this clear, but what battle she missed is not important enough to be in the lead, just say she was refitted during early 1915.
      • Reworded, but the name of the battle was given.
    • "She was the last battlecruiser completed before the war" is given in the lead but never presented or sourced in the article body. Also not sure what the significance of this is in terms of being in the lead.
      • Sourced.
    • "and exploded shortly afterwards" in the lead indicates there was some lag, whereas the article body indicates the ship broke in two right away.
      • No time interval was specified in the main body since it's uncertain exactly how long it took.
    • Was C. I. Prowse still captain at the time of the sinking?
      • Yes.
    • I'd repeat the link for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 when it occurs again at the end of the article.
      • Why? There's a cite and link to the actual document there.
    • The 1,266 figure is stated twice close together in the article body. I think the second instance could just say "the lost officers and men". However, it would be good to include this figure in the lead.
      • Rewritten.
    • "Her wreck was discovered in 1991 and rests partly upside-down, on sand, 60 metres (197 ft) down." is given in the lead but these facts are never presented or sourced in the article body.
      • I'll see if I can find a cite for the depth.
    • The lead puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that this was a battlecruiser, but there's no analysis later of whether this 'battlecruiserness' was a factor in her blowing up so quickly.
      • None of my sources make any conclusion about the issue since the exact cause of her destruction is still unknown.
    • The article lacks any analysis of whether her design departures from the Lion class make her better or worse.
      • That would be OR since none of my sources make any such judgements about her.
    • The article needs some historical context about Beatty, battlecruisers, and Jutland. Not to re-hash the whole story but just to indicate that there is a story. Consider that if this article ends up on the main page, readers will come to it directly. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are links for all that stuff; the focus here is the ship. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The nominator has just asked me to come back here and say whether my concerns were addressed. Basically, they weren't, since at the time I thought the responses to my points were cursory and uninterested. I thought, and still think, the article lacks sufficient analysis and historical context to be FA. But given that the nominator and I were clearly not on the same wavelength, I decided to neither support nor oppose, and instead say nothing further. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure about using "Great Britain" as an author
  • Where is Greenwich? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead is rather short and fails to summarise the article. It could do with another couple of paragraphs.
    • Lemme see what I can do, but I'm not going to try to summarize the technical details of the design as that would just be redundant.
  • The lead image lacks alt text; in fact the alt text for all the images should be reviewed since I've now seen another couple of images lacking alt text, or with extremely short alt text. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt text is not a requirement at FAC.
      • I see it's been pulled since the last time I was at FAC. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be a few terms that still need to be wikilinked, such as "deep load". "direct-drive steam turbines" should be linked to both Direct drive mechanism and Steam turbine. There are probably more terms that can use wikilinks. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little more

  • "Transmitting Station" (in Fire Control section) - does this need to be capitalised? Also should be wikilinked (or redlinked) to something - plotting room is the closest I could find but probably isn't appropriate... Simon Burchell (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linked, although plotting room isn't a bad link if it were expanded beyond the coast defense usage that the article has now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dropped in another dozen or so links, you might want to check them to make sure they're going to an appropriate destination. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Infobox:
Complement uncited
Good catch, done.
The precision in the conversions from imperial to metric is different in the infobox and the prose, some examples: 703 feet 6 inches (214 m) vs. 703 ft 6 in (214.4 m); 89 feet 0.5 inches (27.140 m) vs. 89 ft 0.5 in (27.1 m)
Rounding errors, fixed.
  • Draft or Draught?
Good catch.
  • 9-inch vs. six-inch? 9 inches vs. six inches?
Fixed.
It's not linked so I can't tell if it's the same person or not. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I researched Storey's account and he retired as a Captain; since he's notable according to the guidelines I linked his name. Kirk (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:MHU will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I can't get an image for "partly upside-down" (and it doesn't have a hyphen when it's not in front of a noun, per M-W) ... is part of the ship upside down? "Bottom of the North Sea" sometimes conveys a sense of the deeper parts of the North Sea ... I haven't seen the nautical maps but I wouldn't expect this to be true. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Though necessarily technical, the article is an engaging summary of solid references. Although it may not be required, I've added alt text to images. • Astynax talk 08:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • Images all check out. You might consider adding File:QueenMary.jpg, which should be alright to use.
    • Much better photo for the infobox.
  • A couple of suggestions on the lead: you might want to qualify Jutland as the largest naval battle of the war. Also, make it clear that the ship sank as a result of the magazine explosion. It's obvious to us, but might not be to non-experts.
    • Done.
  • Why is "protected place" italicized?
    • Beats me, fixed.
  • SMS Köln should be Cöln
    • Damn spelling reforms.
  • Queen Mary was the only British BC to accurately judge the range to the Germans in the opening salvo at Jutland. I think Halpern ascribes this to the Argo clock - may be worth including.
    • Brooks says that Princess Royal had the most accurate range with QM 1,000 yards over.
      • You're right - I was remembering it wrong.
  • Do we need links to this and this? Neither seem to add much, and the second is a poorly cited wiki. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've deleted the photo gallery link, but I think that the Dreadnought Project links are worth keeping. Not least because they go into a lot more detail about the fire control equipment, with cites to contemporary documents, than I've done here. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. My concerns have been addressed, so I'll move to support. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Queries nice read, almost there.

  • last Battlecruiser commissioned before WW1 or last British one? I think its the former but it could be read either way.
    • Addressed in the lede.
  • "Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command of the ship." doesn't really fit the paragraph it is tacked onto.
    • Added to the following section
  • There is a substantial difference between the peacetime and wartime complements of the ship. Were the extra men naval reservists, do we know how quickly they were taken on after the outbreak of war and what difference did they make to the capabilities of the ship?
    • Unknown. Changes in crew complement are little documented in the sources other than vague generalities.
  • Her namesake is mentioned in the infobox, but I would have thought that merited a sentence in the article, along with whoever launched her, and perhaps some context as to the use of the name. Is she the only Queen Mary in the history of the Royal Navy?
    • Good idea. Paragraph added.
  • Colour scheme is also worth a mention, did they still have peacetime and wartime colours in those years? Thanks for checking, FA only requires that we cover that which has been covered in reliable sources, so if they haven't yet then we don't need to. ϢereSpielChequers 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure. Burt, usually my best source for changes in paint scheme, says nothing on this. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK that's enough for me. I'll leave it to others to check sourcing and MOS compliance. But as regards prose, balance and completeness, I think this is ready for FA. ϢereSpielChequers 16:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes -- lot of support there, Storm, but still a a few things:

  • "British Royal Navy"? I know this has probably been discussed but the RN should be known well enough to get by without being qualified by "British" -- and even if clarification were needed, there's no need to link countries.
    • That one snuck by me.
  • Battlecruiser linked twice in the first two sentences; perhaps you meant Lion-class battlecruiser in one go the second time...
    • Yes, I should have specified which version of the sclass template to use a little more carefully.
  • North Sea linked twice in successive sentences.
    • This is all just in the lead, pls give the whole article a going-over for redundant wording/links.
      • Found one more later in the article.
  • While we're at it, just remind me when you last had a spotcheck of sources at FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • USS Arizona, back in December, was my last spotcheck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tks, I see that was Fifelfoo, so I think that's comprehensive and recent enough to give you a bye for this round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_Queen_Mary/archive1&oldid=859516907"