Talk:HMCS Fredericton (K245)

Military history: Maritime / Canadian / North America / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	World War II task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Canada: Military Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force

HMCS Fredericton (K245) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 8, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Significant actions[edit]

G'day, I've taken a run through the article to copy edit it in preparation for its GA review. One thing I noticed while going through is that the War duty section does not really seem to indicate if the ship was involved in any significant actions. Did the ship sink or attack any U-boats, etc? Is there any information available on this aspect? If so, I think it should be added. The other suggestion that I have is to include the details that are in the infobox in the relevant sections in prose. For instance, the sonar/ASDIC and radar does not seem to be mentioned, nor does the displacement, range, beam or draught. As always, please feel free to adjust any of my copy edits if you don't agree with. Good luck with the GAN. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ship never saw any action. That's why she was called the 'luckiest ship in the navy'. She came close to action with convoy HX229 but turned back at St. John's because this was the easternmost part of the Western Local Escort Force's jurisdiction. I will think about adding the other info. Thanks for your comments. Atrian (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the reply. In that case, I'd suggest tweaking the wording in the article a little. For instance, "During her time in the Battle of the Atlantic she was never fired upon, which earned her the reputation as the "luckiest ship in the Royal Canadian Navy"" could possibly be changed to something like: "During her time in the Battle of the Atlantic she was never fired upon nor had cause to use her own weapons in anger. This earned her the reputation as the "luckiest ship in the Royal Canadian Navy"." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the former is true the latter seems to be speculation. But after checking with the source it seems likely that she was never fired on by enemy ships since the convoys she was with were never attacked. So I made your suggested change. Atrian (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMCS Fredericton (K245)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use bullets in the infobox as per WP:SHIPSMOS. Use either<br/> or a {{plainlist}}

OK, I changed that and it does format better. Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the infobox in other ways, especially by adding the Ship power entry, to meet the MOS.

Thanks. Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify that Fredericton was a modified-Flower class corvette. When you discuss the changes it's not clear if you're referring to the earlier Flowers or another class entirely.

Macpherson/Milner refers to Fredericton as part of the "1940–1941 Revised Program". This is mentioned in the infobox. I used the word 'revised' informally in the text and thought that was OK. I don't know if "modified Flower class" is correct usage. I'll have to review the book again. Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1940-1941 Revised Programme refers to the naval construction plan and not the ships themselves. The modified Flowers are considered to be a subclass of the overall class, though I don't know if that's been noted on the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading the Macpherson/Milner reference (which I consider the best on the subject of Canadian corvettes), it refers to corvette classes as revisions. The modified Flower class corvette#Flower class (modified) is referred to by Macpherson/Milner as an increased endurance class of ships built from 1942 onwards. This was needed to make the Halifax to Londonderry run across the Atlantic. Fredericton was initially only capable of local escort duties going no further than St. John's and thus was not a modified Flower. A major refit in 1943 allowed it to join cross-Atlantic escorts. Atrian (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the design section to try and make this more clear. Atrian (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the ASDIC website reliable? It's not wrong, IIRC, but it's not sourced.

I was looking for a good reference for ASDIC and this one seemed OK. Macpherson/Milner also discusses the ASDIC system but this was a comparable online source. Do you know of a better one? Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try Brown, David K. (2007). Atlantic Escorts: Ships, Weapons & Tactics in World War II. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-012-2 or Willem Hackman, Seek & Strike: Sonar, Anti-submarine warfare and the Royal Navy 1914–54, London: HMSO, 1984 Websites generally need a source of their own to be considered reliable, so I usually just stick to books.

I changed the reference to Hackmann. Atrian (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide conversions for the ship's weapons.

Done. Does the 50 cal machine gun need a conversion? Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Done. Atrian (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link forecastle, triple expansion reciprocating engine (see Marine steam engine), sheer (proper spelling), flare, mainmast (all one word), bridge, radar, depth charge.

Links as in wikilinks? I added these. Atrian (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.

Also 'shear' was used in the reference but it looks like 'sheer' is the proper spelling. I'll correct that. Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change "she draughted xxx" to "had a draught of xxx" as draughted really isn't a verb.

Done. Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehogs really aren't depth charges, but are depth bombs, see the Hedgehog entry for details.

Is it OK to refer to the device as a depth bomb thrower? Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's perfectly appropriate.

Can you fix the deadlink? I had a real problem with the Heritage Project website when I was working on the RCN destroyers a while back, but I think that I managed to get a working link. (at least it worked back then)

I looked into this and asked about the Heritage Project at a forum called Army.ca [1]. I received this reply:

As the Government initiated the Common Look and Feel 3.0, the Project Pride website did not conform to the new guidelines and regulations for a government internet site and needed to be taken offline. DNHH will be creating a new website which will probably go online late 2013 or early 2014. The delays are due to the wide sweeping changes that address accessibility to information for those that may have disabilities. They are also looking at implementing a new web development tool that will make loading information on the web easier and faster for the web developers.

So it looks like this information will be revived at some point but not in the near future. Wasn't sure what to do about this. Wait or look for alternative sources for this information. Also, I wasn't able to find an archived version of the Heritage Project webpages. Do you know of one? Atrian (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, typical government efficiency. I don't know if any of the links for the River-class DD articles that I wrote are still valid, but you might try them and see if you can find the entry for Fredericton. That's about the best that I can offer as I remember that I had some success doing that when direct searches failed miserably.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found alternative refs for the CNHP. We'll just have to wait and see if this ever comes back. Atrian (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made one small tweak on the revised design wording, so everything is good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Atrian (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMCS Fredericton (K245). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]