Talk:HMS Indefatigable (1909)

John Cunningham Service

Under John Cunningham's article, he served on HMS Lion as navigator. There was no mention of him serving on HMS Indefatigable.

Bankrobber (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cunningham's article does in fact state that Cunningham was navigator on Indefatigable - 'During the next three years he graduated to the role of senior navigator of the gunboat HMS Hebe, the cruiser HMS Indefatigable in the West Indies, and the minelayer HMS Iphigenia in the Home Fleet.' It can be found by searching this website as well, and is in Cunningham's entry in the ODNB. Benea (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking closer though, Cunningham's article may be linking to the wrong ship, depending on when Cunningham was on Indefatigable. It may be that it's the earlier armoured cruiser, if he was aboard prior to 1909. Benea (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

P Turrent, Q Turrent, X Magazine...

The article makes references to such locations on the ship as P Turrent, Q Turrent, X Magazine, and so on, but there is no illustration on this page or on the page describing the class in general to guide the casual reader as to where these locations are on the ship. Jgoulden (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Indefatigable (1909)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ✽ Familiae Watt§ ^(TALK) 04:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

Reviewing the article against the "quick-fail criteria".

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • - the article seems well sourced with a wide array of reference material.

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • - no obvious NPOV tone to article.

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • - no tags on page.

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • - no edit warring over article.

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • - scope of article clear.

Article meets standards set out in the "quick-fail criteria", with no obvious issues or problems evident. Full review to follow. ✽ Familiae Watt§ ^(TALK) 04:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Main review assessment

Good read and interesting. Only a few issues to clear up.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   •  Done (Lead) "She was essentially a enlarged version of HMS Invincible with additional length added amidships to allow both 'P' and 'Q' turrets to fire on either broadside and a revised protection scheme."

   Words like "essentially" are frowned upon as they are not encyclopaedic. Additionally, I am not too sure about the words "admidships". Is it a precise nautical term or is it being used to refer to the middle of the ship, in which case can be changed. Suggested rewrite for sentence: "She was an enlarged version of the HMS Invincible design, with additional length added midship [or amidship] to allow both 'P' and 'Q' turrets to fire on either broadside and a revised protection scheme."

   •  Done (Lead) "When World War I began she was in the Mediterranean..."

   Suggest: "When World War I began HMS Indefatigable was in the..."

   •  Done (Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau) "Indefatigable, accompanied by Indomitable, under the command of Admiral Sir Archibald Berkeley Milne, encountered the battlecruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau on the morning of 4 August 1914 headed east after a cursory bombardment of the French Algerian port of Philippeville, but Britain and Germany were not yet at war so Milne turned to shadow the Germans as they headed back to Messina to recoal."

   This is a long sentence and needs to be improved. Suggested rewrite: "Indefatigable, accompanied by Indomitable, under the command of Admiral Sir Archibald Berkeley Milne, encountered the battlecruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau on the morning of 4 August 1914, heading east after a cursory bombardment of the French Algerian port of Philippeville. However Britain and Germany were not yet at war so Milne turned to shadow the Germans as they headed back to Messina to recoal."

   b (MoS):

   •  Done Article confirms to the WP:MOS, except it is overlinked, see: WP:OVERLINK. Words like "overall", "beam", do not need to be linked. Additionally, terms like the Mediterranean, which are very well known geographical words, do not need linking. Same as well known phrases, like "Declaration of War". Also, given that the 4-inch, 12-inch, and 18-inch turret guns are linked in the info panel, they do not need to be linked in the body of the article. The info-box is a good place for linking - and if terms are linked there, they do not generally need to be linked in the article elsewhere.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Well referenced.

   b (citations to reliable sources)

   • Source 21 needs to include "publisher" tag.

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Develops subject matter well.

   b (focused):

   • No digressions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   • No POV problems.

5. It is stable.

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 18:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes

• I don't remember which article this was in, but wasn't the German construction plan recently discovered rather than recently published? - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Nope, they published their construction plans before the ship was laid down; they just didn't go into details about the ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Can anyone tell me a little more about how Brooks described the spotting tower? If he didn't quite go as far as "failure", we might say the tower was of "limited use" or something. - Dank (push to talk) 00:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Brooks says: "It is most unlikely that this position, with its severely restricted lines of sight was ever used in action."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, see how it reads now. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
      • 'S'all right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like a little more on the blast shield ... did it look like a barbette? Do you happen to have an image or a link? - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed and linked to gun shield.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like a little more on "he received an incorrect signal" ... was the Morse Code misread? Was the mistake at HQ? - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell the error was at the HQ end.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• The picture from Brasseys publication is incorrect. Turret positions are different for HMS Indefatigable, HMS Australia and HMS New Zealand.--Humu (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Survivors

Just a quick note -- I was interested in the names of the two survivors and came across this thread. It says that Able Seaman Elliott and Leading Signalman Falmer, and that there was subsequently discovered a third survivor named John Bowyer. Can someone verify this and update the article accordingly? Raul654 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no source I can find gives the name of the two confirmed survivors so I can't verify that Bowyer is the third and not one of the other two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Books is your friend. They are named in John Campbell's Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting page 61. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Since when does hearsay on a forum constitute a reliable source? And on the subject of survivors, I've just listened to the entire recording of Leading Signalman Falmer held at the Imperial War Museum (got the headphones on right now) - in the two versions of his story which he gives, he makes no mention of seeing Captain Sowerby in the water, and other than a person called Jimmy Green who was later killed, he states that he was quite alone until early next morning. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 15:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that he quotes the file number for Bowyer's service records, which are available for £3.50, I'm not at all sure that he's incorrect. Spend the money and double-check, I'm not willing to do so for a fairly trivial point. The bit about Captain Sowerby in the water is a bit more problematic, because that contradicts multiple published accounts. Of course, now we're getting into the area of what to do when sources contradict each other. Especially since Wiki isn't supposed to rely on primary accounts like the tapes that you're listening to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can quote a file reference. This still doesn't answer the question as to whether one person's claim on an internet forum is reliable. A claim which also contradicts many published recounts. That aside, I don't have to spend the 3.50, as I'll be at The National Archives on Wednesday. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

But the file number does make it verifiable, which is the point. If the poster misquoted the guy's actual service record then I'll delete all mention of him and if you'll provide the file numbers for those recordings that you just listened to, I'll add a note about Falmer not seeing Sowerby in the water.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The file number is an indication of Original Research, surely to God? At any rate, the Royal Navy's translation of the German Official history, p. 274, (found in ADM 186/826) gives 1,017 killed and 2 "Made prisoner" from Indefatigable, total crew of 1,019. I think that's fairly conclusive. I'll still dig out the seaman's service record when I have a chance, but if even the Germans say two survived ...--Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The article on the Battle of Jutland lists 1,019 crew and 2 survivors. I can find no online references to 3 survivors except the online forum ref listed on this page. I have read dozens of accounts that the ship had 1,019 crew and only 2 survivors. While I don't doubt the honesty of the people doing research Wiki requires 3rd party, verifiable, non-original research so unless anyone has any verifiable objections I'm going to make the changes throughout this article to reflect the 1,019/2 numbers. Coinmanj (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)