Talk:HMS Duke of York (17)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article HMS Duke of York (17) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 3, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
June 2, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
July 5, 2012 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
Current status: Good article

Editorial comment[edit]

Moved here from main article:

I served onboard HMS Duke of York and was acting Yeoman of Signals attending on Admiral Bruce Fraser. The ship did not take part in the invasion of Okinawa and did not carry out any bombardment of Japan. In fact we never fired an "angry" shot in the Pacific. We led the British element of the combined fleet into Sagami Wan (Tokyo) to accept the surrender of Japan. Lieutenant Commander Royal Navy (Rwetired) email h3jjr@btinternet.com

Geoff Mason's ship histories do not report Duke of York's presence at Okinawa, or of any bombardment operations. Since this claim is uncited, I'll remove it. Benea (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actual launch date[edit]

Seems that there are two different launch dates:
...and launched on 16 September 1939 (article)
...Launched: 28 February 1940 (template)
Сергей Олегович (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox has the correct launch date (28 February 1940). I've corrected the date in the text. Benea (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. Russian article corrected. Сергей Олегович (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


A few suggestions[edit]

Hi, I have done a bit of copy edit work on this article today. I am unable to help with content as I don't have any sources and ships aren't my area of expertise. However, I have the following suggestions for further improvement/expansion of this article that you might like to consider:

  • in the Construction section, is there any information on why the ship was built? Was it part of a re-armament program, etc.? This might help provide some context. The date that the ship was ordered could also be included here (currently it is only mentioned in the infobox and lead);
    • See how you find the construction section now. Thurgate (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • in the Description section, is there any information that could be included about the crew? For instance, in the infobox it says the ship had a complement of 1,556 men in 1945. Was it smaller or larger when it was first made? If so, why did it change (automation perhaps?). Is there a way to work this into the prose?
    • I can not find any mention of crew differences in my sources. But I will have a look around to see if their was a reason for this.
  • the distances probably should have conversion templates added to the them, e.g {{convert}};
  • I'm not sure if the web site used for Citation # 15 can be considered to be reliable - it looks like a web forum. Is there a better source that could be used?;
    • I've removed this bit as it isn't mentioned in any of my other sources (think I forgot to delete when I moved my Sandbox into the article.)
  • the Shell damage subsection seems a bit small, is there any way to remove the heading and just incorporate it in the Action with the Scharnhorst section?
    • I've incorporated it into the Action with the Scharnhorst section, let me no if you think it works now.
  • the Mediterranean operations section probably could be expanded a bit. It doesn't really say what the ship did in the first paragraph;
    • Added a bit of info.
  • in the Post war section, "Some people were hospitalised as a result of the accident" - this is a bit vague. Are there any more details that could be added?
    • Removed that bit as I could not find anything on it from my sources.

Anyway, good work so far and good luck with developing this article further. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments! Thurgate (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Happy to help where I can. Some of the project's resident ships experts might be able to offer other suggestions and provide further sources if you contact them. Parsecboy and Sturmvogel 66 (to name just a couple) do a lot of work around similar topics. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yer, I might ask them for some help. But once again thanks for having a look at the article! Thurgate (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Should I put the article up for B-class assessment again? Thurgate (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the article is still listed at WP:MHA as needing assessment so, with luck, someone should come along soon and take a look. I can't really assess it, though, as I'm probably too close to it now. In my opinion it would rate a B, but I'm not really knowledgeable about ships, so I might have missed something. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok. Well I shall just have to be patient then. Once again thanks for suggesting the changes needed to bring it up to b-class (hopefully). Thurgate (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)