Talk:HMS Garland (H37)

From Polish Wikipedia
Polish Wikipedia entry (At pl:ORP Garland) is quite extensive, it seems in fact to be more extensive than the current version of this article (nominated for GA). Roughly, each paragraph of the current article is a section in the Polish version. Polish article is also well referenced, with many inline citations, making information verification (AGFed transfer) much easier. I'd suggest that it is used to expand this article. Google Translate may help. And perhaps somebody at WT:POLAND would offer more assistance. The Polish article uses several Polish-language books, including three dedicated to this ship. As far as I can tell, our current article here does not have a single source dedicated to this ship (now, it may well be such a source simply does not exist in English). Once this article incorporates information from pl wikipedia, it will be an easy GA, and likely, a good FA candidate. PS. A commons category should be created for images from the ship, currently the image used in the English one and the one in the Polish one share no category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd expect each of the Polish warships of WW2 to have a much more extensive article on the Polish wiki than in the English wiki. AFAIK there is no book specifically on Garland in English. I'd prefer the article to pass GA before more material is added, after which it could be considered for A-class and maybe FAC. You just have to be aware that it's quite easy to put in too much extraneous material when working from what is basically a biography of a ship. Forex, dates of departure and arrival for each convoy escorted is simply too much information for an encyclopedia.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the Polish wiki article is uncencyclopedic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no way of knowing one way or another, since I don't read Polish. But I have known editors who believe that almost every single detail about a topic is relevant for a wiki article and I'm not sure what kind of material you want to bring over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * More details. I don't have time to go over them in details, but for example, information on the agreement between British and Polish governments, how the Polish crew complement was selected, why the name was kept by the Polish Navy, the historiographical controversy on whether the ship could've taken part in the Battle of Cape Spada... that's just what is in one of the sections of the Polish article (on the first months in the Polish service) that seem not mentioned in this article. From a later section, that man crewmembers were awarded decorations in the aftermath of the PQ-16, including five Virtuti Militari. Also, the section with the list of captains is missing from this article completely. Or when the ship was visitied by various dignitaries, Polish and British (Poland's C-i-C, British Navy Lords, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of that sounds fine, provided that it's all sourced. I'm not that fond of noting visits by VIPs, unless there's nothing else notable that happened around that time. I don't feel that medals other than the highest should be are really significant unless the article is about that person. Unless the captain is notable in his own right, I don't generally care about them. But if you feel differently, be sure to work them into the text, rather than a separate section or whatever. Go ahead and add that stuff and we can discuss things if there are any problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added this to my to do list. No guarantee when I'll get to it, could be in months... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No hurry. Take your time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)