Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMAS Australia (1911)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:37, 25 May 2010 [1].

HMAS Australia (1911) edit

HMAS Australia (1911) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC), Saberwyn[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all of the criteria and it is a Milhist A-class article. Dank very kindly copy-edited it. This is a co-nomination between myself and Saberwyn.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article doesn't clearly specify whether the ship was coal or oil-fired. Gatoclass (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both actually. Added a sentence giving her fuel capacity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Spray-on fuel? Wouldn't much have fancied that job :)
    Might I suggest you also add "coal-fired" to the infobox? It's a fairly important detail IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've added a few paragraphs and some photos to this article, but think that I'm neutral enough to vote. I also think that this article easily meets the FA criteria and provides a remarkable level of detail on the ship. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article! --Yueof theNorth 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have one quibble about the article, and I'd like to have it clarified before casting in my support. I notice that here, we have the reference section arranged like so:

== Footnotes ==
== Citations ==
== References ==

I'm not quite sure what the MOS standard is here, but what I think looks much better is something like this:

== References ==
;Footnotes
;Citations
;Bibliograpy (etc.)

Anyway, this is the only quibble I have, and a very minor one, but finding out what's Supposed To Be would be a great help. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've used this layout (or one similar to it) in all the FA and A class articles I've worked heavily on to improve clarity, and it seems to be an acceptable format. According to Wikipedia:Layout#Notes and References, the organisation and layout of footnotes, citations, and references is "mostly unresolved" The main question I have with 'your' layout is how would the subheadings of "Bibliography" be handled? -- saberwyn 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. That is a good question. ;Filmography, etc., perhaps? Anyway, it's cool with me this way, my own eye doesn't like it, but I can't fault it on technicality. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 03:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article has lots of content, many pictures and very good grammar and prose. AirplanePro 23:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I don't see anything wrong with your organisation of Footnotes, Citations and References. The one thing I would change is the subheading "External references", which should be "Online references". A couple more points:

  • It is not necessary to include the title of the work in the citation, when this title is already listed in the references. Thus, for example, "Jose, pp. 24–5" rather than "Jose, The Royal Australian Navy 1914–18, pp. 24–5"
  • When the citations are to online sources, it is best to include a link in the citation. Thus, for example, [33] could read: "HMAS Australia Built by John Brown Clydebank Clydebuilt Ships Database".

The sources themselves all look good. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regarding use of the title in the short-form citations, this is a habit I've fallen into because I've often had to use multiple works by the same author in other articles. If some have to be clarified, I think that all should be standardised in their appearance, because consistency looks better (have a look at HMAS Melbourne (R21)#Citations for a "only-where-necessary" approach...how it has ended up there looks poor, but I concede that its not a major enough issue for me to go and change it). Having two points of reference (author and title) instead of one also makes it easier to identify the full source.
    • In regards to the "External/Online references" heading and the use of external links in citations, I am completely indifferent to these: if anyone changes it in the article, I won't complain, or if there are a few more observations here in support of these changes, I'm happy to do it myself. -- saberwyn 03:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are very minor issues. Leave alone unless someone insists. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a copy-edit throughout. But it's not bad; will be promotable, I think.

  1. "as well as the overcautiousness of the Admiralty"—"as well as an overcautious Admiralty".
    • Is "as well as Admiralty overcaution," an acceptable rephrasing? -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer "an overcautious Admiralty", too, with the caveat that I know diddly-squat about style issues outside the U.S. and Canada. I'll reply to a few more of these, with some trepidation. My top priority is working on a track record of writer/copyeditor relationships, while Tony's working here to set a certain standard for FAC. Relationships require some amount of deference, humility and compromise; standards don't. Still, I think we'll get this fixed up in no time, and I'm glad to see Tony shares my optimism. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I prefer the original phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've tried Tony1's suggestion...it can be changed if it doesn't look right. -- saberwyn 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done. Since there are 14 points and a lot of discussion, I'm going to add a bold "Done" for the ones where I've checked the article and it looks like we've addressed the issue Tony brought up (except for those that Saberwyn has answered already). - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Its destruction: of the squadron or the ship?
    • The squadron. "its" replaced with "the latter's" to clarify. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Do we need "repeated"? Isn't this assumed? And it's the second time in four lines.
    • I assume you mean the second occurance of the word in the second paragraph. Its been removed. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. twice collided with.
    • I don't understand what you mean by this comment...could you clarify? -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence is: "During this time, the Australian ship collided with friendly warships on two occasions (the first caused her to miss the Battle of Jutland), she was involved in early attempts at naval aviation, and eleven of her personnel were involved in the Zeebrugge Raid." He's saying that "twice collided with friendly warships" is tighter than "collided with friendly warships on two occasions". But if you make that change, something else will have to change ... which is fine with me, I thought the sentence was a little unwieldy. There are several ways to tackle this; if I were the writer, I'd go with "During this time, she missed the Battle of Jutland after colliding with her sister ship HMS New Zealand, and later collided with another friendly ship, HMS Repulse. She was involved ...". - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've rewritten the relevant sentances to read :"Australia was then assigned to North Sea operations, which consisted primarily of patrols and exercises, until the end of the war. During this time, Australia was involved in early attempts at at naval aviation, and eleven of her personnel participated in the Zeebrugge Raid. The battlecruiser was not at the Battle of Jutland, as she was undergoing repairs following a collision with sister ship HMS New Zealand." This way, we mention what the ship did before what she didn't do. I've dropped the mention of the second collision from the lead because, while both were relatively minor collisions, the New Zealand one caused more damage, and was responsible for keeping Australia away from the major battlecruiser action of WWI. -- saberwyn 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done IMO. Addresses Tony's point and agreed on all points, Saberwyn. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 11, normally.
    • Do you mean that the word "eleven" in the second paragraph in the lead section should be replaced with the numeral? I think that the word is an acceptable usage under WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (emphasis mine)" and all other non-date numbers in that section are rendered as words. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Per Wikipedia:Mos#Numbers_as_figures_or_words, and since there are two-word numbers in the article that aren't written out, this was a MOS violation. Whether it should be a MOS violation is another question; this one is complicated, and I'll discuss the issues as they come up in future copyediting, and see if we can get everyone on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on this, I've gone through and changed all the numbers larger than nine that I could find from prose to text, unless the number precedes a measurement. I still think it looks wrong, and that the phrasing of both MOS and MOSNUM permit the usage, but I'll concede to consensus. -- saberwyn 02:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll go ask at WT:MOS how they interpret WP:MOS and whether there's some wiggle-room. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. So "fired in anger" excludes defensive fire? I've not seen this expression before; will our readers wonder?
    • It would depend on what you mean by "defensive fire"...a Phalanx or Goalkeeper type weapon designed to put a large quantity of metal in the path of an incoming projectile, or in terms of "They're attacking, we're defending, let them have it"? My understanding of the term "fire in anger" is that its a deliberate, non-training, non-exercise use of a weapons system with intent to do damage and/or harm to the target. Although this is the phrase used by the sources, I have been unsuccessful so far in finding sources that describe or define the term (as opposed to simply use the term) for the article I promised during the A-class review. I'm open to suggestions for an alternate term to replace the two occurences in the article until such time as this is successful. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I heard it in a naval documentary once, and I've seen it in the kinds of sources we use for these articles; I'm reasonably sure that I haven't seen or heard it otherwise. I don't know if this is helpful, but it seems to me the issue is a tradeoff between getting the really interested reader up to speed on phrases that they really ought to know if they want to learn this stuff, vs. not confusing the general reader. I agree with Tony that there's a reasonable chance that it will sound a little strange to the general reader. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. To answer your question, I'd substitute "on the enemy" in both instances. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...I fail to see the problem with "fired in anger". It's quite the well-used and well-known phrase in my experience. Not using it would be the strange thing. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It'll do until I can throw together a bluelink post-FA. -- saberwyn 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done, if Tony is happy with "fired on the enemy"; I'll help Saberwyn look for sources for this wording after the FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "loan personnel"—is that the standard term? If not, "seconded" would be more widely understood.
    • "Loan personnel" or "personnel on loan" are the phrases I'm used to seeing in works describing the involvement of Royal Navy personnel in the RAN's early years. In a quick readthough of David Stevens' chapter on the battlecruiser in The Navy and the Nation I saw "loan personnel" once, but no occurences of "seconded" or any variants to describe this practice. That said, I'm removing the word "loan" from the sentance...I think we can get away without it. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It's a microscopic diagram; even if we need to double-click to read the text, a much bigger size is required even to give the reader an idea of the basic design. Generally, try to minimise the proportion of readers who forgo double-clicking because they can't bothered or their connection is slow. Try 260px and down a para?
    • Done, but even 260 px really isn't enough to make the text legible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Why are imperial units given as the main ones? This is a MOSNUM breach. And there's "ft" third time.
    • During the time this ship was in service, imperial units were in common use in Australia: Metrication did not occur until the 1970s and 1980s. Imperial units are also given in several of the sources consulted as the primary unit (if not only). As such, I think it meets MOSNUM#UNITS, particularly the points "For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. (emphasis mine)" and "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. (emphasis mine)" -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment "And there's "ft" third time" is ambiguous, could you clarify its meaning? -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I'm really not comfortable weighing in (haha) with disputes over units; we need more consensus, and I need to learn more about the current sorry state of affairs. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "but she reached 26.89 knots"—you could ellide "she" this time; it's occurring a lot.
    • What do you mean by "ellide"? I can't find that in any of my paper dictionaries or on Wiktionary...the closest I get is elide, and that doesn't indicate what the problem is or how you are suggesting it be solved. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "but reached" ... but the sentence has now been rewritten, for the better. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "centralized"—Australian spelling, please.
    • Fixed. I have also run a spellcheck on the article, and haven't been able to find any other non-Australian spellings. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Damn. I'm now asking for help with this when I copyedit non-American non-Canadian articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't beat yourself up about it. I kept missing it until Tony1 brought it up, and I speak the language. -- saberwyn 02:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "Dominion"—I thought Canada was the Dominion; was this term applied to Australia as well?
    • The Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of Canada are two amongst several nations that, at the time this ship operated, were considered British Dominions. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "second class battleships"—is this a technical term, or do you really mean "not much good"? If technical, surely S and C? And a hyphen anyway? That sentence is long and cumbersome.
    • As a comment - "Second Class Battleship" was a technical term of the time; cruisers were also designated as First (aka Armoured), Second (usually = "Protected") and Third (what we would call Light) cruisers. The system made a good bit of sense, although admittedly it can be a bit hard to penetrate nowadays. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually there should be a hyphen for second-class battleship; it's a compound adjective. So how would you suggest breaking the sentence up?
        • I shortened the sentence to make it a little easier to read ... I like the balance of "small battleships and large battlecruisers", which is more or less the idea, but feel free to revert or tinker, anyone. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • P.S. I have no objection to "second-class battleship", but I agree that as a reader, I'm left wondering whether I'm supposed to be understanding something specific from that ... better to explain what it means if you do decide to use the term. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm happy with the rephrase. -- saberwyn 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No hyphen after an -ly adverb.
    • I have found two instances which I think relate to your comment, and have removed the hyphen in both instances. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Damn, I missed these. It looks like he got them all. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And more. Tony (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it helps, several of my friends with little interest in Wikipedia (and even less in naval history) have said they will look at the article in the next few days and provide a 'reader's eye view' of any problems for a general peruser. I hope my responses do not come across as terse or combative (which I'm scared they might), and want to make clear that I welcome more suggestions from you, but ask that you provide a little more context and detail...dumb it down for the idiot (i.e. me) in the audience. -- saberwyn 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree re the precedence of units. This ship was built at a time when Australia used imperial units, and I think it would be appropriate in such circumstances to lead with those units. The main battery was 12 inch, not "305 mm". Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass, I generally don't get involved with questions about units, because my own views differ from our style guidelines, but I just want to point out that it's possible to make a case for "12-inch gun" on the theory that it functions as the name of the gun or a bunch of related guns, while also making the case for using SI units generally. If the main readership (which we generally take as international, with special deference to the sensibilities of Australians in this case, I would think) generally reads and understands one unit better than another, standard practice in the publishing industry is to defer to those sensibilities. The reader is always right (we really ought to have an article on that) ... if you can figure out who your reader is. - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can only speculate as to who "the main readership" might be, but I personally feel that structures which were built to a particular system should be annotated in that system first. To do anything else is to mislead the reader in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Gatoclass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also. The British guns were designed and designated as "12-inch", etc., not in SI units. (Actually, I believe the technical specifications were 'twice the shell weight of the next smallest gun', but that was the goal, the actual guns were built to more-or-less round-in-inches sizes - 12", 13.5", 15"...) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria and am happy to support. For the purposes of the review, here are my comments:
    • images all have alt text (no action required);
    • there are no disambig links (no action required);
    • external links all work (no action required);
    • Suggestion: the Shipwrecks & scuttled vessels ribbon template at the bottom of the article might look better if it were collapsed (this may require editing the template itself);
    • Suggestion: I think "External references" would be better if it were "Online sources" as it looks a bit strange so close to "External links" — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "External references" has been changed to "Online sources". I've removed the parameter from the "shipwrecks" template, which collapses the "Scuttled Vessels" field. However, it does looks like collapsing it any further requires edits to the template itself, which is something I'm reluctant to do, because that template scares me. -- saberwyn 13:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had a go at it myself. This is what I did to the template: [2]. This is what I did to the article: [3]. Feel free to revert if you don't like. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding this sentence: "Ammunition and replacement barrels for the main guns were no longer manufactured." Weren't they still making ammunition for Brazil's Minas Geraes and São Paulo? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 14:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's what the source said. Possibly Brazil had a plant capable of making 12 inch shells, which was beyond the capability of the Australian munitions industry. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Hmm, alright. I also just noticed that they were similar—but not the same—guns. Perhaps the ammo was incompatible. Regardless, I have no other problems with the article; it has my full support. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theres also 3ft difference in Draught between AWM which has 30ft(9.14m)and this article has 27ft(8.2m) Gnangarra 01:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The size is converted in the infobox and the first time it's used in the main body. Nobody's making our own terms, the linked article uses the gun's proper designation. The draft figure quoted is for standard load, I expect the Australian figure is for deep load.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cassells (and the body of the article) specifies the maximum draught as 30 ft 4 in...I've replaced the figure in the infobox with this. Displacement is always going to vary between sources, and the displacement itself is not a set value but depends on the configuration of the ship at any given time, and the load carried at any moment.
As for the conversions in the gun 'name'...the topic was raised a few days ago at WT:MOS. Although it looks like consensus is going to be along the lines of "if its in an article link, don't convert", I'd rather wait for one of the MOS Powers That Be to make that call. -- saberwyn 04:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fit the bill but I think if someone had a problem with the MOS edit, they would have reverted or argued by now. I'll make the change (removing conversions inside links to weapons), feel free to revert as always. - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support nothing else besides these two issues grabbed my attention while reading, Gnangarra 08:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HMAS_Australia_(1911)/archive1&oldid=1138462082"