Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Courageous (50)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Courageous (50) edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's ready. One of the only two ships in history to have served as a battleship or battlecruiser in combat and then to be fully converted into an aircraft carrier. Have no fear, you'll have the opportunity to read about the other in a month or so. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No dablinks, no broken external links. No alt text, but I don't know what The Official Stance at A-class is. I'll reserve judgement until I've had a more detailed look in a few days, but to start with, can you source andor elaborate on the "Outrageous" nickname? -- saberwyn 21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'll take this article next unless you want me to swing by Hood, SV. You want me to give reasons for stuff or just launch a frontal assault? I'd prefer cruisers (no quotes) to "large light cruisers" (with quotes); putting quotes in the first sentence is just a little confusing because they could mean several different things. That's a great phrase, but we can take time to explain what it means in the first section. - Dank (push to talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either one is fine by me; I'm not going to submit either for promotion until the end of the month at the earliest. Damn the torpedoes, full speed! I'll just abuse my newly acquired abilities if I don't like your changes. (sounds of mad cackling receding into the distance)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh. I told him that was a bad idea. - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The details on the structural damage (see HMS Courageous (50)#First World War) may or may not be more than most of you guys want to know. In general, the issue of what makes an interesting ship article, what you guys want to see more or less of, is a call that shouldn't be made by a copyeditor, so comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the damage details because semi-knowledgeable people might be asking "just how was the ship damaged?", but then, I tend to like a copious amount of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, would someone be willing to run through this article and future articles at A-class (I think we've covered the ones up to now) and link the terms that most readers aren't likely to know? If you spot a term but don't know a good link, either let us know or red-link it. I've already run through this article deleting second links to the same article ... if the article might get to FAC some day, please don't add links that we already have anywhere in the text (but once in the infoboxes and once in the text is fine). - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually ... what we really need, and I'll do it later if no one else gets to it, is run through the 30 FAs and A-class articles before this one and see what we linked to (we've been pretty careful) and make a list so that people will know what to link and where to link to. I don't see any reason this couldn't be automated into a tab that links every term in an article that appears in that list, and also checks to make sure we don't link twice. We don't need this for A-class, but most of these articles can and do go on to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the time of day is mentioned in one of these articles, we usually provide, and I recommend, a note telling us whether it's Greenwich time or CET, since British sources will generally give give one and German sources will give the other. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Google searches are kind of an amateurish way to gauge English usage, my Google search is showing Captain Lieutenant (sometimes hyphenated) as much more common than Kapitänleutnant in English sources, so I went with the section link Captain Lieutenant. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Rear Admiral" hyphenated in British English? - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph under Conversion gave the recommissioning date as May 1928 per Burt. I removed this since the date was given as February a few paragraphs later, but feel free to re-insert, explain or swap it for the other date. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rewritten the sentence to clarify that the ship was finished in February, but spent the intervening time on trials and training before she joined the Med Fleet; see how it reads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the changes look fine now. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to put a "the" in front of 800 Squadron; is that doable? "She carried 800 Squadron" is going to be misread by some. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Up to you, I guess. To my military-trained ear it's not how the unit would be referred to. It's kinda like ships where you don't normally use articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any chance of saying "800th Squadron"? - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why don't we leave it as is since I can point to just as many books that refer to FAA or RAF squadrons without an ordinal as with. If somebody objects I'll change it, but I'd prefer not to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for A-class, but with a few comments/questions for improvement:

  • Trials damage: exact cause is uncertain. probably needs a citation; I think its a contestible claim.
    • Done.
  • In mid-1917 Courageous received a dozen torpedo tubes in pairs:... might need a bit of rewording to clarify, something like received six paired torpedo tube sets:...?
    • Reworded, but I'm not sure that's it's much of an improvement. See what you think.
  • The 1st Cruiser Squadron was ordered to attempt to intercept the German ships, but they proved to be faster than hoped and the British ships were unsuccessful. This comes across as a bit wordy...maybe The 1st Cruiser Squadron were ordered to intercept, but were unsuccessful as the German cruisers were faster than expected.?
    • Done.
  • Is there any recorded use of the Struter and Camel embarked at the start of 1918?
    • No, probably because there weren't any significant actions during the year.
  • "Conversion": For context, can you specify when Furious was converted, and how Courageous' design was improved?
    • Is it now clearer?
  • For what purpose did the ship carry 34,500 gallons of petrol?
    • Added
  • "Air Group": Do you know which squadrons were embarked during between 1928 and 1933? During what time period were 810, 820, and 821 Squadrons embarked? I assume that 811 Squadron was aboard for the duration after embarking in early 1939, but when was 801 Squadron replaced by 822 Squadron?
    • The air units were flights before '33. I can dig up which ones were assigned to the ship, but I'm fairly certain that they were swapped back and forth quite a bit.
  • "Sinking" I don't think the linked article is the best way to describe the WWII RN hunter-killer groups. Instead, you could probably adapt some of the content (particulary the second-half of the first paragraph) from HMS Ark Royal (91)#With the hunter-killer groups.
    • Found a better link.
  • Can you specify the number of survivors?
    • Nothing I have lists their numbers.
  • Are their any memorials regarding the loss of the carrier?
    • Beats me, I haven't heard of any.

There may be more to come. Hope this all helps. -- saberwyn 21:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2:

  • Was the ship originally a battlecruiser (class article), a light battlecruiser (infobox), a cruiser (lead), or a large light cruiser (previous lead)? Would it be worth footnoting the first occurence in the lead, with what various sources describe her as?
    • I'm not exactly sure how the RN handled this sort of stuff, but I'm fairly certain that she was initially designated as a large light cruiser because of the limitation on the size of new construction laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1915. Afterwards, I have no idea. Fisher did refer to her as a light battlecruiser on occasion, but he tended to be a bit loose in his language.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "30% larger airgroup" claim should be copied into the body and cited.
    • I've rephrased it with the actual numbers and don't really think that it needs citing, considering that the ship's air group size is later cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide a conversion for the 1916 construction cost? -- saberwyn 21:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably, but I don't exactly know how. At any rate, I've discovered that I can't source the conversion cost (it was a legacy from an earlier incarnation), and have deleted it. I have a figure for Glorious's conversion, but not for Courageous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the future, you can use {{Inflation}} for British currency back to the 1200s (and American to 1800 and German to 1882). Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - just a few nitpicks:
    • What's a Mark I* gun turret? Is that the formal designation? The asterisk made me think something was going to be explained.
      • That's the formal designation. Stars, or asterisks were used to denote minor changes. They were cumulative so you could have Mark III****--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should use the inflation template for the construction cost.
      • I didn't know that there was one, thanks.
        • I went ahead and added them for the construction and conversion costs. Feel free to change them as you see fit. Parsecboy (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say that after commissioning she was assigned to 3rd LCS, but due to the mauling of 1st CS at Jutland, Courageous was reassigned. The way it's worded makes it sound as though Courageous was in service at the time of Jutland.
    • "managed to slip through the gaps in the British patrols and destroyed a convoy" doesn't sound right to me. For parallel structure it should be "managed to slip through...and destroy a convoy..."
      • Yes.
    • I'm not particularly familiar with 2nd Helgoland, but I know SMS Kaiser and SMS Kaiserin were present and briefly engaged HMS Renown. Did Courageous come into contact with them at all?
      • No, Renown was detached from the 1st BCS and fought independently of the 1st CS.
    • Maybe just link "hydraulic accelerators" to aircraft catapult?
  • Excellent work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMS_Courageous_(50)&oldid=383213295"