Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Propose altering the caption on the first picture to read 'Resolution between the wars'. The current caption 'at anchor' is inaccurate as the ship is clearly underway. Apart from the visual signs of water flow along the hull, the ship is flying the White Ensign at the stern; if at anchor it would also have a Union Flag at the jackstaff. The mistake might have arisen from the vertical chains hanging from the bow. These are not anchor chains but part of the paravane installation. Mandrake079 (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could well be right, but I'd prefer to see what the original photo caption said. If you could dig up and add a link to the original image, presumably on the IWM website, that would be great. Otherwise, I've been informed that judging things like that for yourself is WP:OR and verboten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't find the original image on the IWM site or anywhere else (it's not my image, and the uploader hasn't given any clues). As you may have guessed, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor; my proposal was intended simply as a professional interpretation of the visual evidence and I apologise if that constitutes 'verboten' original research. I note, however, that the photo in the article was originally captioned 'HMS Resolution between the wars'; the phrase 'at anchor' was added on 3 May 2014, so it ought to be possible to WP:PROVEIT one way or the other by referencing the published source on which the edit was based. Mandrake079 (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pity that you couldn't find it (I was hoping that you might have better search-fu that I do), which probably means that we'll have to drop the image entirely as images in good article and better have to have locatable sources. Annoying as it's got an IWM file number and it's a pretty decent image of the ship. Personally I'm "the more information about an image, the better", but I've been criticized for dating photos by the changes to their appearance and making conclusions about their movements because making those conclusions is using my judgement and not repeating what a source said. Just trying to help you avoid stepping into a potential minefield.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the IWM file number that you mention - probably because I don't know my way around the Wikimedia Commons well enough - so couldn't search for it properly. You'll be aware of the IWM's Q65625 (1933) and Q71893 (1939) though neither is as good as the existing image (assuming that depicts 'Resolution' at all which, if I follow the logic, might be questionable given its apparent lack of provenance). Thank you for pointing out the pitfalls of editing. I'd assumed that correcting an obvious technical mistake would be simple (assuming one can tell the difference between a ship that's at anchor and one that's underway) but I now realise it's a lot more complicated and therefore withdraw the proposed amendment with profuse apologies. I am still curious how the original caption came to be embellished in 2014. After careful study I can see nothing to suggest that the ship was at anchor at the precise moment the photo was taken and would be interested, from a professional perspective, to know the basis on which that particular amendment was made. Mandrake079 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.svg)
