Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Hermes (95)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 15 November 2011 (→HMS Hermes (95): promoted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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.
Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Hermes (95)[edit]
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "The ship's construction was delayed by multiple changes in her design after she was laid down as well as outright suspension after her shipyard closed after she was launched." - this sentence is a bit hard to follow
- Split in two; how does it read now?
- Watch for overly wordy phrases like "Most of the changes were due to the fact that her designers..." - suggest "Most of the changes were because her designers..."
- Indeed.
- Check for internal consistency, for example in World War I/II vs First/Second World War. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems like this one has been going on for ever no concerns. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- If we go with Ark Royal as a template, the sectioning could be improved: I suggest start with Design, Construction, Armament and aircraft; finish the service section with Sinking.
- The sections are small enough that I don't really see any advantage to breaking them into smaller ones.
- Maybe someone else has an opinion about the sections; the reason I suggested sinking was I believe that's the action's name.
- The sections are small enough that I don't really see any advantage to breaking them into smaller ones.
- Specficially on Aircraft I had a hard time gleaning what type/number of aircraft were carried on board during her service career and this seemed to vary frequently - maybe expand the infobox's '20' with some time periods or add some more detail in the prose. If the various 'squadron X' mentions were supposed to tell me the number of planes I would put that in the article somewhere.
- I'll grant that you were not able to derive aircraft numbers during the interwar period because I don't have a source that provides them. I know that Flights were generally about 6 aircraft, I'm not sure that that was true of those embarked on Hermes. I'm truly puzzled by your comment that you couldn't track the types of aircraft deployed given the info provided in the second paragraph of the service section, forex. And when the units received different types of aircraft that's been noted as well. Otherwise they can be presumed to have kept the same aircraft. That said, I see that I didn't provide the aircraft flown by a couple of flights and need to add them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant when squadron X appears on board in 19xx, what happened to squadron j, k and/or l which were mentioned earlier? The way it reads to me the ship only carried a single squadron of a single type of aircraft which doesn't sound like 20 to me, and most contemporaries carried multiple types at a time. I thought the Ark Royal article did a good job of summarizing the types (if not the numbers).Kirk (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From about the mid-30s, all the ship is generally carrying is a single squadron of a dozen Swordfish so you are reading things correctly. The Fleet Air Arm was so chronically short of aircraft between the wars that it didn't have enough fighters to deploy a squadron on each of its fleet carriers, much less a light carrier like Hermes. It's the early period from 24–33 when she usually has two to three flights aboard that I'd think would be more confusing. That table is nice, but would be a PITA to assemble because Hermes, although much smaller than Ark Royal, had a much, much longer career and more individual units to track because Flights were about half the size of a Squadron before the war began. And, quite frankly, I really have no desire to try and assemble an equivalent table for Victorious with her much longer career. My feeling is that if you want to track a Flight or Squadron, read the unit's article. That's why I linked to all the flights, even if they're an echelon below what we normally consider notable. If the ship had actually done anything significant with her aircraft during the war, I'd have specifically listed them, just like I've done for Akagi, Kaga, Courageous and Hosho, all A-class or better. I used the same format here that I used on Eagle, currently at FAC and I think that documents the ship's aircraft well enough for our purposes. If you disagree, feel free to comment there as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put some comments at Eagle; if Hermes only had 12 aircraft on board because of a war shortage or the modern aircraft were bigger I think you need to say that somewhere because 20 does not equal 12. Please sprinkle in a few numbers with the squadron/flight references so the reader doesn't have to look up the number of planes in each. My quick read of the other articles you mentioned: Akagi/Kaga has a nice summary of her aircraft in the infobox and the design section. Courageous has some of the same problems as this article. Hosho doesn't have much in the infobox but does have a 'Air Group' section summarizing the types of aircraft over time, that would be less of a PITA for you I'm sure. Kirk (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you confusing capacity with what she actually had on board? You seem to be assuming that countries always load their carriers to their capacity, but that's not at all true. Note: 12 Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers of 814 Squadron (her only embarked squadron for all of WWII as a close reading will reveal) and nine Fairey Seal torpedo bombers of 824 Squadron. As I said, I've provided numbers when known. I'll look at Hosho's treatment of this issue, but my sources to not generally specify proposed air groups for the British carriers, unlike the Japanese, just raw numbers, so I'm not sure that I'll be able to use that approach.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is either her capacity in 1939 was 12 Swordfish, or the ship wasn't at full capacity and I would prefer if that was explained in the article if possible; if you've checked your sources and none of them seem to care I understand. I did find a source British naval aircraft since 1912 which says her capacity was 15; but Colledge says 20. The article is very well sourced and I understand there's not a lot you can do when your sources get it wrong or can't agree! Kirk (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's impossible to say what her capacity was exactly since it all depended on how large the aircraft were. The only sure thing is the number she had onboard at any given time and I've provided that as often as I have been able to. If you'd like, I can add something about her being in a secondary theater and therefore lacking her full complement of aircraft, if I can find a source that says as much. Which I may not be able to do. I'll have to poke around to see if I can find something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is either her capacity in 1939 was 12 Swordfish, or the ship wasn't at full capacity and I would prefer if that was explained in the article if possible; if you've checked your sources and none of them seem to care I understand. I did find a source British naval aircraft since 1912 which says her capacity was 15; but Colledge says 20. The article is very well sourced and I understand there's not a lot you can do when your sources get it wrong or can't agree! Kirk (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you confusing capacity with what she actually had on board? You seem to be assuming that countries always load their carriers to their capacity, but that's not at all true. Note: 12 Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers of 814 Squadron (her only embarked squadron for all of WWII as a close reading will reveal) and nine Fairey Seal torpedo bombers of 824 Squadron. As I said, I've provided numbers when known. I'll look at Hosho's treatment of this issue, but my sources to not generally specify proposed air groups for the British carriers, unlike the Japanese, just raw numbers, so I'm not sure that I'll be able to use that approach.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put some comments at Eagle; if Hermes only had 12 aircraft on board because of a war shortage or the modern aircraft were bigger I think you need to say that somewhere because 20 does not equal 12. Please sprinkle in a few numbers with the squadron/flight references so the reader doesn't have to look up the number of planes in each. My quick read of the other articles you mentioned: Akagi/Kaga has a nice summary of her aircraft in the infobox and the design section. Courageous has some of the same problems as this article. Hosho doesn't have much in the infobox but does have a 'Air Group' section summarizing the types of aircraft over time, that would be less of a PITA for you I'm sure. Kirk (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From about the mid-30s, all the ship is generally carrying is a single squadron of a dozen Swordfish so you are reading things correctly. The Fleet Air Arm was so chronically short of aircraft between the wars that it didn't have enough fighters to deploy a squadron on each of its fleet carriers, much less a light carrier like Hermes. It's the early period from 24–33 when she usually has two to three flights aboard that I'd think would be more confusing. That table is nice, but would be a PITA to assemble because Hermes, although much smaller than Ark Royal, had a much, much longer career and more individual units to track because Flights were about half the size of a Squadron before the war began. And, quite frankly, I really have no desire to try and assemble an equivalent table for Victorious with her much longer career. My feeling is that if you want to track a Flight or Squadron, read the unit's article. That's why I linked to all the flights, even if they're an echelon below what we normally consider notable. If the ship had actually done anything significant with her aircraft during the war, I'd have specifically listed them, just like I've done for Akagi, Kaga, Courageous and Hosho, all A-class or better. I used the same format here that I used on Eagle, currently at FAC and I think that documents the ship's aircraft well enough for our purposes. If you disagree, feel free to comment there as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant when squadron X appears on board in 19xx, what happened to squadron j, k and/or l which were mentioned earlier? The way it reads to me the ship only carried a single squadron of a single type of aircraft which doesn't sound like 20 to me, and most contemporaries carried multiple types at a time. I thought the Ark Royal article did a good job of summarizing the types (if not the numbers).Kirk (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll grant that you were not able to derive aircraft numbers during the interwar period because I don't have a source that provides them. I know that Flights were generally about 6 aircraft, I'm not sure that that was true of those embarked on Hermes. I'm truly puzzled by your comment that you couldn't track the types of aircraft deployed given the info provided in the second paragraph of the service section, forex. And when the units received different types of aircraft that's been noted as well. Otherwise they can be presumed to have kept the same aircraft. That said, I see that I didn't provide the aircraft flown by a couple of flights and need to add them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Namesake needs a citation.Kirk (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Is the ACR progressing? It's been a while since the last comment. I may have to close the discussion as no consensus if it doesn't receive any comments during the next day or day. --Sp33dyphil © • © 04:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- "Most of the changes were because her designers were waiting for the results of experiments with the existing carriers to allow them to optimise her design.": Not sure I follow. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You and me both, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now I follow. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You and me both, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Like Hōshō, Hermes was based on a cruiser-type hull, but she was initially designed to carry both wheeled aircraft and seaplanes.": This is the first sentence below the lead, and I feel like I'm missing some context. For instance, I don't understand the "but".
- Me neither; yet more evidence of my habit of treating "but" like "and".
- I'm not completely clear on how much of WP:LEAD is enforced at FAC, but I do see people say that everything in the lead is supposed to be supported by something below the lead. The only mention of Hōshō below the lead is the second word.
- If it's cited, I don't think that it's a big deal.
- "Progress was slow as the conversion of Eagle from a battleship to an aircraft carrier in the same shipyard was much further along and could be finished much more quickly. The leisurely speed of construction allowed for more time with which to reconsider the ship's design.": I don't follow. "As" implies causation here; how did the quick construction of Eagle slow down the construction of Hermes? The sentences need to be in a different order.
- Rewritten
- "44 by 20 feet (13.4 × 6.1 m)": Use "by", not "×" in the convert template, here and below. [I got the other one. Done.]
- "faired" is going to need a link, but I don't see a suitable link on WP on Wiktionary. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC) [Done].[reply]
- "required as much as 25 to 30 degrees of weather helm at low speed when the wind was on or near the beam.": I don't follow. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed
- "needed some repairs to repair storm suffered en route.": I don't follow, and "repairs to repair" doesn't work for me.
- Agreed, it was missing a word or two in addition.
- "403 Flight": I changed it to "No. 403 Flight" (just for the first one; same principle as in your previous FAC).
- "began a refit at Chatham Dockyard at the beginning of November. One of her 4-inch guns was removed during this refit. Sometime after this refit,": too many "refits".
- Indeed.
- "Bangkok, Siam": second comma
- Yep.
- Consistency needed in Hermes's, Hermes'. (Either is okay; I'd go with 's).
- Fixed.
- "Sometime in 193": ?
- Good catch, fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments on citations: Bibliography locations, Surely UK per your other citation. England doesn't exist. "Cheltenham, England" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wait until de-evolution reaches its inevitable conclusion. England will rise again! Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - article appears to be in excellent shape, though the lead's a little long for my taste. File:HMS Hermes 1938.jpg can be added to help break up the 1930s section a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, unless I missed it, the Commons category should be added - there are a couple photos of the ship under attack/sinking that won't of course fit in the appropriate section. Parsecboy (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good ideas, both. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, unless I missed it, the Commons category should be added - there are a couple photos of the ship under attack/sinking that won't of course fit in the appropriate section. Parsecboy (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. 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.