Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Tiger (1913)/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 Ian Rose 13:48, 13 January 2013 [1].

HMS Tiger (1913)

edit

HMS Tiger (1913) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Tiger was the last British battlecruiser built before the beginning of World War I. The ship participated in most of the major naval battles in the North Sea during the war and was the only prewar battlecruiser not to be scrapped in accordance with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. She was finally scrapped in 1931 to meet the terms of the 1st London Naval Treaty. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and hopefully will not need much work to remedy any deficiencies in the FA criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • During the A-class review, I stopped at HMS_Tiger_(1913)#First World War. I've just checked the changes down that far, and they look good. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "practicable speed": practical speed; speed isn't "capable of being put into practice".
    • I'd disagree on this one; practicable in this context means the most speed that your engines can stand. Practical speed doesn't mean the same thing to me.
  • Replace single quotes by double quotes throughout, except around single letters.
  • "to continue to engage": to continue engaging
  • "Almost immediately afterward Lion lost her remaining dynamo": Would be meaning be altered in an essential way by removing "Almost immediately afterward"? (The more adverbs, the more important it is to consider whether the meaning they add is worth the extra words. You rarely need three adverbs at the start of a sentence.)
    • Changed to shortly afterward
  • "This caused Rear-Admiral": See WP:Checklist#because. If a cause-and-effect word doesn't add to the meaning, find a way to drop it.
    • How does it read now?
  • "northeast": "north-east" isn't required, exactly, but it's a lot more common in BritEng. Check throughout. Also, consistency needed on "east-southeast", "east south-east". (Probably go with the former.)
    • Done.
  • "to think that the signals meant to attack Blücher, which was about 8,000 yards (7,300 m) to the northeast. So they turned away from the pursuit of Hipper's main body and engaged Blücher.": to think that the signals meant for him to attack Blücher, about 8,000 yards (7,300 m) to the northeast, which he did, turning away from Hipper's main body.
    • Covered this in your because comment.
  • "Her performance was noted and commented upon by the senior leadership of the Royal Navy: Lord Fisher was moved to write: "The Tiger's gunnery seems to have been villainously bad on January 24, yet she seems to have had a lot of practice."[6] and Pelly was described as a "poltroon".": [If Lord Fisher was the one who called Pelly a poltroon]: Lord Fisher criticised Pelly's performance, calling him a "poltroon" and adding, "The Tiger's gunnery seems to have been villainously bad on January 24, yet she seems to have had a lot of practice." - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • "he mistimed his manoeuvre and forced the leading British division to manoeuvre": repetition. One option: his mistiming forced the leading British division to manoeuvre
  • These are my edits. Everything else looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Sources and images but no spotchecks

  • File:HMS_Tiger_Jutland_damage_diagrams.jpg: page number?
    • Given in the image info on Commons
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
    • Fixed
  • FN10: which Burt?
    • Good catch.
  • Don't need date for Campbell citations
    • Indeed
  • Missing bibliographic info for Brooks
    • How the hell did that happen? Fixed.
  • FN24: need full citation
    • Redundant, deleted
  • FN62: page formatting
    • Fixed
  • Check for doubled periods caused by templates
    • Fixed.
  • Which Greenwich? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Infobox-wise
  • the lpp is uncited
  • Deleted.
  • I fixed the deep load displacement number to match the cited prose
  • Base on HMS Queen Mary I would remove '39 × water-tube boilers' from the installed power and summarize the propulsion as '4 shafts, Brown-Curtis direct-drive steam turbines, 39 Babcock and Wilcox water-tube boilers'.
  • I go back and forth on whether the manufacturer should be in the infobox for the machinery or not. According to the revised Ships MOS, the installed power line covers both actual power generated and how it was generated, boilers, etc. Queen Mary was written before that change was made and it's never seemed urgent to update it.
  • Fair enough.
  • The complement is uncited; I assume the citation will give a specific number as well.
  • Good catch.
  • Unless there's some precedence for this I would prefer two lines for the crew w/dates instead of a range; I also had a hard time figuring out why the refits added ~300 men to the ship - are you sure they didn't add additional armament in the 1916/1917 refit?
  • Two lines, done. I really don't know why, but note that some of these additional men are firecontrolmen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 3-pounder gun is uncited
  • Deleted as they were saluting guns.
  • In the armament section, I would replace 'To defend herself against torpedo boats, ' with 'Her secondary armament consisted of'
  • Done.
  • She paid off for the last time on 15 May 1931 at Rosyth - I would cut 'for the last time' as redundant and/or use decommissioned to match the other way this was worded in the article.
  • Done.
  • Why is there a further reading section? I think that probably could be cut. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? It consists of a detailed tactical account of Jutland and two memoirs by people who served in the ship. Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better if they were cited in the article somehow, specifically the memoirs. Kirk (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read them so I can't say how much they could add to the article, but maybe some reader might find them of interest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I did add some final comments but the article looks ready for promotion. Kirk (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – why is the "Battle of Jutland" section a sub-section of "Battle of Dogger Bank"? Seems like they should both be level 3 sections. Celuici (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts Looks good to me now, support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are there cost estimates from Brassey's and Parkes, like your excellent work on Lion-class battlecruiser?
    • It was cited in the infobox, but I've added it to the main body. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although it has been suggested that a sister ship named Leopard was considered in the 1912–13 Programme and deferred until 1914 as a sixth member of the Queen Elizabeth class." - Breyer is the only one who has said this, right? Might be worth noting that he specifically is that only one. So something like "Breyer suggested that ... Queen Elizabeth class, but no evidence has been found for this."
  • "but only achieved 104,635 shp (78,026 kW) during her sea trials, although she managed to exceed her maximum designed speed of 29 knots (54 km/h; 33 mph) by a small margin" - interesting. Do you know what caused this? Was it because she had almost no weight aboard during the trials? The hull was more efficient than predicted?
    • Reading Roberts a bit more carefully, her speed using forced draught was intended to be 30 knots, but her builders were not responsible if this could not be done. I corrected a typo in that her designed speed was 28 knots, not 29. Unlike the Italians in the interwar period, and destroyer builders of all nations, the Brits were pretty realistic in running the high-speed trials of their heavy ships and generally ran them at realistic loadings. And they, at least until 1915, ran them in shallow water, which tends to reduce speed. Relating hull shape, engine output and propeller design has only recently become more of a science than an art.
  • "giving a total fuel supply of 7,140 long tons (7,250 t) which compared very favourably to Queen Mary's total of 4,800 long tons (4,900 t)" - 'very favourably' means 'much better' here, right? Right now it reads 'was similar, but only slightly better' to me.
  • "Originally Tiger carried 300 rounds per gun, but this was reduced during the war to 150 rounds per gun." - why?
    • Campbell doesn't give a reason, although the trivial weight reduction involved pretty much rules that out as a possible reason.
  • "On 23 January 1915, a force of German battlecruisers under the command of Admiral Franz von Hipper sortied to clear the Dogger Bank of any British fishing boats or small craft that might be there to collect intelligence on German movements." - this seems like a gross overreaction (battlecruisers are a rather large response to fishing boats). Is there any more background that you can give?
    • There's not much more available than that. The order came from von Ingerohl to Hipper so I suspect it was one of these things where the Germans were poised to run from whatever they couldn't fight.
  • Was Tiger a "Splendid Cat"? I thought that was the Lion class.
    • Strictly speaking you're correct, but the term seems to have been loosely used to cover all of the 13.5-inch gunned BCs.
  • "Although by the 1930s Tiger was still in fair condition and was not a terribly old ship, her death knell was sounded by the London Naval Conference of 1930, during which Tiger was sacrificed by the Admiralty as part of an overall reduction in world battleship fleets." - an unfortunate day. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FAC instructions and remove the green templates: they slow down the page and cause template limit errors in FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Sandy. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 4 January 2013 (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/HMS_Tiger_(1913)/archive1&oldid=1078800461"