Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Marlborough (1912)
- 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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
HMS Marlborough (1912) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
A bit of a departure for me, this was the second command flagship of the Grand Fleet for much of the war. She had quite an eventful career, being in the thick of the fighting at Jutland, where she was badly damaged by a German torpedo. After the Great War she was involved in the British intervention in the Black Sea during the Russian Civil War and ultimately served as a target for weapons tests. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Support Comments
- No DABs, external links OK.
- Images appropriately licensed.
- Some redundancies in the displacement section in the infobox.
- Not sure what you're talking about.
- Change HMNB Devonport in the lede to Devonport Royal Dockyard. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good catch
- I wouldn't advise abbreviating yards. Yd looks very odd as you very rarely see it ever abbreviated.
- Done
- group of battleships battering of the German light cruiser fix this.
- Done
- German cruiser launched probably two torpedoes awkward.
- It seems fine to me as is, and I can't think of a better way to say it.
- Umm, "probably launched"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the question isn't whether Wiesbaden launched the torpedoes or not, but the number of them ;)
- Ah, perhaps simply "German cruiser launched one or two torpedoes"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Works for me.
- Ah, perhaps simply "German cruiser launched one or two torpedoes"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the question isn't whether Wiesbaden launched the torpedoes or not, but the number of them ;)
- Umm, "probably launched"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- It seems fine to me as is, and I can't think of a better way to say it.
- knocking the shores loose Is that what they're actually called? I've always heard of them as props.
- Could be a BrEng vs. AmEng thing - Campbell calls them shores (and that's where the article here is, incidentally).
- Might consider consolidating these into a single sentence: She was repaired by the Armstrong Whitworth shipyard at Jarrow. The work lasted until 2 August, and she thereafter departed for Cromarty, arriving on 5 August.
- Merged.
- Second command reads oddly to me, even though I think that it's proper RN terminology. Perhaps assistant or deputy commander?
- Does Simon have an opinion on this, because it still seems odd to me. Perhaps 2nd-in-command or something?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Don't forget this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- That seems fine to me, though I'd defer to Simon if he has an opinion on it.
- Don't forget this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Does Simon have an opinion on this, because it still seems odd to me. Perhaps 2nd-in-command or something?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think that you mean that the ship was re-commissioned in 1919.
- Fixed
- Link to 4th Battle Squadron and kite balloon.
- Added both.
- Add the ampersand command to the entry for Perry and Pleshakov.
- Done
- Standardize publisher location data for state/country.
- Fixed
- Stationery office.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: - anything else to address? Thanks Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments
- According to The Times Marlborough commissioned at Devonport on 2 June, 1914, and according to the Navy List completed to full crew on 16 June.
- Do you have the full citation for the Times? I don't have a subscription. Also, Burt says she was commissioned on 16 June.
- "Naval and Military Intelligence," The Times, 5 June, 1914, p. 14. This gels with the Navy List which is specific about when a ship commissions or otherwise (or doesn't mention it, especially during the war).
- Thanks, corrected now.
- "Naval and Military Intelligence," The Times, 5 June, 1914, p. 14. This gels with the Navy List which is specific about when a ship commissions or otherwise (or doesn't mention it, especially during the war).
- Do you have the full citation for the Times? I don't have a subscription. Also, Burt says she was commissioned on 16 June.
- Marlborough joined the First Fleet of the Home Fleets, not Home Fleet, which was renamed Grand Fleet on the outbreak of war. Given she was already flying Sir Lewis Bayly's flag in the Fleet by 30 June then she was already "fully commissioned."
- Burt just calls it the Home Fleet, which is how I've always seen it - but added a reference to Bayly.
- It was the officially the Home Fleets from 1912 to 1914.
- Ok, added the "s".
- It was the officially the Home Fleets from 1912 to 1914.
- Burt just calls it the Home Fleet, which is how I've always seen it - but added a reference to Bayly.
- When she joined the Fleet she wasn't the flagship of the deputy commander - Bayly was junior to the Vice-Admiral Commanding the Second Battle Squadron, Warrender, on whom supreme command would have devolved.
- So what is Burt referring to when he says "2nd flag, Home Fleet"?
- No idea. But Marlborough wouldn't be the flagship of the second-most senior officer in the First/Grand Fleet until 19 December, 1914, when Burney hoisted his flag in her. So Burt's pretty much wrong.
- Odd that Burt's confused, but I suppose nobody's perfect.
- No idea. But Marlborough wouldn't be the flagship of the second-most senior officer in the First/Grand Fleet until 19 December, 1914, when Burney hoisted his flag in her. So Burt's pretty much wrong.
- So what is Burt referring to when he says "2nd flag, Home Fleet"?
- Burney didn't become Second-in-Command of the Grand Fleet until August, 1915.
- Wouldn't Warrender still have been senior until he left in December?
- Burney was senior to Warrender. At any rate the title of Second-in-Command was more a method of delegating certain administrative functions in port. Jellicoe knew full well that if anything happened to him anyone could be appointed to succeed him in the long run (as eventually happened when Beatty was appointed in 1916).
- Fair enough.
- Burney was senior to Warrender. At any rate the title of Second-in-Command was more a method of delegating certain administrative functions in port. Jellicoe knew full well that if anything happened to him anyone could be appointed to succeed him in the long run (as eventually happened when Beatty was appointed in 1916).
- Wouldn't Warrender still have been senior until he left in December?
- Post-War: Unless Marlborough was decommissioned then "recommissioned at Devonport" would be better.
- Fixed per Sturm's comment above.
- 4th and 3rd Squadrons: 4th and 3rd Battle Squadrons presumably. Seems incredible Burt got that wrong. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- My habit is to give a full unit name and then use a shortened form - it seems to bog down the prose if you give the full name every time, especially multiple times per paragraph. Thanks Simon. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that that's taking author's license a bit too far, especially when for a brief period in 1912 the Royal Navy used "# Squadron" to describe Battle and Cruiser Squadrons combined. Your call, of course, but given the number of appearances one might as well be complete. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, I think - they should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Simon Harley: - are there any remaining issues with the article? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, I think - they should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that that's taking author's license a bit too far, especially when for a brief period in 1912 the Royal Navy used "# Squadron" to describe Battle and Cruiser Squadrons combined. Your call, of course, but given the number of appearances one might as well be complete. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- My habit is to give a full unit name and then use a shortened form - it seems to bog down the prose if you give the full name every time, especially multiple times per paragraph. Thanks Simon. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Comments
- No dablinks; removed some duplinks.
- Copyedited and did some reformatting of the text so let me know if any probs.
- Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
- Sources look reliable and I didn't spot any formatting issues there.
- Image licensing generally looks good although I'm wondering how we know for certain that the infobox picture is indeed UK Government given there's little info at the source site. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a good point - I've replaced it with one that's demonstrably PD in the US. Thanks Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just following up, I'm certainly inclined to support at this stage but would like to see if there are any further changes required by Sturm or Simon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a good point - I've replaced it with one that's demonstrably PD in the US. Thanks Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies for the egregious delay, but I'm happy to Support now. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Checked the few changes since I reviewed intially and see no issues so I'm happy to support too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support: generally looks quite good. I only have one minor point to raise:
- The conversions for the ship’s characteristics seem slightly different in the body v the infobox, for instance compare "622 feet 9 inches (190 m)" to "622 ft 9 in (189.81m)". Is there a way to make this consistent? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- A good point - fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above 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.