Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/HMS King George V (41)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

HMS King George V (41)[edit]

Just passed a GA review, I would like to take the article further and was looking for some comments in helping me achieve that. Thanks in advance. Thurgate (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


I'm sure that the editors more active in battleship-related articles than I am will provide comments, but to get the ball rolling I have the following suggestions for how the article could be improved:

  • The article is fairly brief and lacks any 'depth'. I think that it should be possible to expand most sections of it.
  • The range of sources used is very narrow, particularly given that there's a huge literature on the RN in World War II. If you read more widely (for instance, Stephen Roskill's official history) I'm sure that you'll find lots more stuff to cover.
  • She didn't transport "Winston Churchill to the Tehran Conference." - she could only have transported him part of the way there (this also isn't cited in the article, and I think that it may have actually been HMS Revenge (06) which carried him)
    • Deleted that particular bit as it isnt mentioned in any of my sources and I believe it was a left over of when I re-worked the article. Thurgate (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There were no "British airborne landings at Taranto" - the 1st Parachute Division was transported to the city by sea
  • The sentence " During the Okinawa campaign, the battleship supported four fast carriers of the British Pacific Fleet." is out of place
  • The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester didn't 'visit' Australia in 1946 - he was the Governor-General of Australia at the time (you should also link directly to Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester)
    • BBC WW2 people's war. Written by a guy who served on the King George V (I don't know how reliable it is but it seems to agree with all my sources). Has a mention on when the ship took the new Governor General of Australia, the Duke of York and the Duchess of Gloucester on a trip to Australia. Added the Governor General link as per your suggestion. Thurgate (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The BBC's People's War website is frequently wildly inaccurate (which isn't surprising given that it's written by people remembering events they were part of about 70 years ago) and not a reliable source. While interesting, that account contains some major mistakes (far less than nine BBs were involved in the attack on Hamamatsu, the Allied fleet wasn't attacked by suicide boats, the date of Emperor Hirohito's radio broadcast is totally wrong, etc). I think that you've also misinterpreted the bit on the Australian Governor General - the account says that it carried him and his wife from the Australian mainland (where they lived at Canberra) to the island of Tasmania during the battleship's voyage back to the UK (presumably from the British Pacific Fleet's main base at Sydney), not that it was a visit to Australia. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Can anything be said about the ship's crew? Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you mean like the conditions they faced etc? Also thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. Thurgate (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Anything would be good! (if possible). Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


  • I see Sturmvogel has been working with you. Welcome to our motley crew of battleship enthusiasts; I'm sure you'll meet a lot of friends here. I've got some comments on the lead; hope this helps. You may find our checklist helpful.
  • Per WP:LEAD, an article of this length (especially after it's expanded as Nick suggests) will probably need another paragraph in the lead section. Three is fine.
  • Our wikiproject strongly prefers "King George V" to "the King George V". "The" is fine in "the battleship King George V".
    • Think I've caught most of them, and ill remember that for next time, Thanks! Thurgate (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "the King George V was heavily involved in severely damaging the Bismarck": "King George V severely damaged Bismarck"
  • "She was also involved in the sinking of HMS Punjabi, after the Punjabi collided with the King George V.": Well, you wouldn't say "I was involved in her death, after I shot her." Just say that Punjabi sunk after a collision with King George V.
  • "Following the end of the war": "Following the war" - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks very much for the comments, now I just need to get my hands on some more sources! Thurgate (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)