Talk:Lancelot Holland

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lancelot Holland article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Biography / Maritime / British / European / World War II

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

NPOV

Seems to me as if a military person wrote part of, if not most of or all of this article. Jmlk17 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section removed on July 14, 2007 was emphatically not a PoV. It was a reasonable summary of the situation. Does anyone seriously think that the Hood and the Bismarck were evenly matched? Or that Admiral Holland was not driven by a sense of duty rather than by a sense of self preservation?

The gap was not that great. If the Royal Navy had fitted Hood with updated armour under her decks then the Hood would have been a match for Bismarck. Dapi89 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the extra armour was never added. And Hood remained quite vulnerable, a 20 year old battlecruiser up against a brand new battleship. So they were not a match and my point stands. Polycarp

No it doesn't. Your missing the point. Firstly to say that Bismarck outmatched Hood implies that any modification to Hood would not have helped her, I disagree. You then seem to admit that if the extra armour was added it would have made a difference, which contradicts the claim that Bismarck outmatched Hood. Bismarck's early hit was fortunate. The same luck that was with Bismarck in the B.D.S deserted her during the final battle. An early hit from Nolfolk disabled her gunnery control station preventing Bismarck from defending herslef effectively. Using your logic, just because Norfolk delivered a severe blow, the cruiser was a match for Bismarck. Your opinion is OR, and fails to take into consideration the circumstances of the engagement. Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The battle was between the Bismark and the Hood as they actually were, not between the Bismark and an imaginary, much improved Hood. 02:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you miss the point. Even if you consider them as they were, had Hood delivered a similar blow like Norfolk first, Bismarck would not have been able to blow Hood out of the water. Dapi89 (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

The lengthy comparison of the Hood and Bismarck is out of place in Holland's biography. Its proper place is in either the article on the battle or the Hood - a brief mention here would be sufficient. I'll wait for comments before major surgery. Folks at 137 (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]