Talk:HMS Terror (I03)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 16:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay.
 * No disambiguation links (DABs), external links OK
 * Do you have any publication info on File:Savoia Marchetti SM 79 Sparviero in volo.jpg? Without it's difficult to fulfill the requirements in the US PD tag.
 * No, I have no information on that image. I felt that section of the article was getting too wordy, so I searched the Commons for any related images. If you have concerns about that file, I am happy to replace it with another. File:HMS Salvia FL18637.jpg looks to be adequately sourced and tagged. From Hill To Shore (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha. I deliberately avoid adding the date to reduce clutter and a bot follows after me. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat the clutter on talk pages and the like. Pretty much every edit is going to get annotated one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat the clutter on talk pages and the like. Pretty much every edit is going to get annotated one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Become familiar with Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide. The first point is that the infobox is a summary of the description, and, as such, should not provide excessive detail, which abounds here. The second point is that WP:INFOBOXCITE states that references in infoboxes should be avoided because the description should cite all the information provided in the infobox and cites would therefore be redundant.
 * Fair point. The infobox is still mostly the same from before my first edit of the article. I've mostly replaced incorrect data rather than challenge its presence. I'd added the refs fairly early in the process when I thought there was a danger of a random reversion of an unsourced change by a new editor. The information should be covered in the prose now, so I should be able to remove them. Do you have a view on the footnote in the infobox? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd move it to the description to keep the infobox as clean as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd move it to the description to keep the infobox as clean as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you haven't already figured it out, I'm pretty fussy about infoboxes because I've been criticized for having overly long ones several times, so I try to keep them as short as possible, confining most fields to no more than a single line as much as possible.
 * So I'm going to go over all the problematic fields here individually.
 * If the completion and commissioning dates are the same, I generally put one or the other, not both.
 * I've gone back to the books on this and found that she was commissioned before she was completed. Commissioned 22 July, conducted trials on 1 August and recorded as completed when she left Belfast on 6 August. I can explain that in the prose but do you have any advice for the infobox? From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd do both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd do both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that method of loss is more important than location, so I'd suggest Scuttled, 24 February 1941 here or Sunk by aircraft, date, etc. Some people prefer to add the name of the ship that did the sinking, which is fine too.


 * Length, use asterisks for each field to create a list with each field on a separate line. I'd suggest round each conversion to the nearest tenth of a meter by adding a |1 to the conversion template and avoid trailing zeroes like 3.0 meters as much as possible. So 100 (3.9 in), not 4.0 and 5 in (127 mm), not 5.0 in (127 mm). Every measurement in the infobox needs to be converted at least on first appearance and again in the main body. In the latter, you should only convert them once. That's not so important in the infobox.


 * Avoid using trials data as much as possible as that's better suited for the description section in the main body. The primary exception would be if the trials data was lower than the designed data.


 * The Installed power field should cover whatever generates the power like the type boiler and it's power rating.


 * The Propulsion field should cover however that power is transmitted to the propulsion method, forex type of engine or turbine to screws or paddles. Generally I use shafts as early destroyers sometimes had more than one screw per shaft, but that's just me. So in this case I'd render the field as: 2 screws; 2 triple-expansion steam engine. I think that reciprocating engine isn't immediately clear enough to the average reader as their first thought is likely to be an internal-combustion engine, not an external-combustion steam engine. Don't bother with specifying the builder or designer of the engine as that's best saved for the description.


 * The amount of fuel is best saved for the class article as the most important thing is a ship's range/endurance, which is missing here.


 * Generally I avoid gun designations in the infobox. British "pounder" guns need both units added so a 12 pounder is (3 in (76 mm)). Everything's supposed to be abbreviated as much as possible so AA gun, 12 pdr, etc.
 * I'm not sure how best to achieve this one. The convert template won't work as you are taking a weight measurement and replacing it with a distance measurement. I've linked the first instance of pdr to the section of the Caliber article that explains the comparitive usage of the two terms. Do you have a suggested method of making the comparison in the prose or do you think the link I included is sufficient? From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never had anyone question what pounder meant, but the link certainly can't hurt. You can write out the conversion like I did above if you know the metric equivalents: 12 pdr (3 in (76 mm)). Or you can use convert template: 12 pdr (3 in) .--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never had anyone question what pounder meant, but the link certainly can't hurt. You can write out the conversion like I did above if you know the metric equivalents: 12 pdr (3 in (76 mm)). Or you can use convert template: 12 pdr (3 in) .--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I prefer to give the number of guns per mount/turret like 2 × triple 6 in (152 mm) guns as think its clearer than 2 × 4 or whatever as it's hard to guess which figure is guns or mounts unless you're already familiar with the ship.
 * I have described the 15 inch guns as two guns on single mounts despite them being in the same turret. Most sources describe them as two guns and they could be angled independently. I understand that the majority of guns on the same mount need to be aimed together. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually only generally true for early turrets although some navies resorted to it later on to save space and weight. That's also a distinction that I don't believe readers will care about, but will be confused by when they see a picture that includes a single turret with two barrels sticking out of it. So go with the twin-gunned turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rephrased in infobox. It is phrased slightly differently in the prose but with the same result. Let me know if you want the prose adjusting on this point. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rephrased in infobox. It is phrased slightly differently in the prose but with the same result. Let me know if you want the prose adjusting on this point. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Give a single range of measurement for each field in the armour. 0.75-4 inches and don't specify individual thicknesses; that's best saved for the class article where you can dive deep into the technical aspects. Individual ship articles need only a moderate amount of descriptive detail, but a maximum of operational detail; class articles reverse these ratios, but it's hard to find a good balance. Take a look at the various FA-rated class and ship articles for examples of the level of detail appropriate for each type.


 * I think this a good start and you have enough on your plate at the moment with revising the infobox and reworking the description section. Tell me that you've addressed the things that I've commented on here so I can track your progress and start with the next step of the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. Sorry, didn't spot you had reviewed this. I'll read through the comments tomorrow and start with the actions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No rush.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As a general question, I've noticed that a lot of the featured articles use sfn to link references to specific sources in their bibliographies. Would you recommend doing that here? If so, I might as well convert them while I am tidying up the rest of the article. I understand the general principle is not to change citation styles on a whim but as I'm the editor who applied consistent referencing to begin with (following this old version) and there have been no other significant contributors to the prose in the last two years, I doubt that making a change now will trigger any objections. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that it's had mixed cite styles for quite a while, I think that you're entitled to use whatever style you prefer. I dislike sfn format myself because I don't think that the extra typing is worth the link to the source in the bibliography, but it's your choice. Personally I just use author, page format, adding a year if I need to disambiguate between the same author's separate works; just enough to convey the essential information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I have covered all your points so far. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Since I've been negligent in following your corrections, I've cleaned up the infobox for you. To roughly summarize what I did: Don't use x for the times symbol; that's in the top row of the wiki markup editing page. No need to use naval gun instead of just plain gun. Don't abbreviate knots and both knots and nautical miles need to be linked. The template automatically defaults to converting them to both km and mi so don't specify the output. undefined undefined will automatically abbreviate the units if you want to save some typing. Annoyingly it doesn't work on long tons. I added |0 to most of the gun and armor templates to force exact conversions and shortened a couple of your long links to the redirects that you likely didn't know about. Once you've converted a given measurement, you needn't do it again, although I often do just because it looks tidier. Remember that the infobox is fundamentally a list, so you shouldn't use words like producing, etc.
 * Some navies make a distinction between gun houses and turrets, but I think that the vast majority of readers don't really care about that, so use turrets with a link.
 * The source with the armour detail uses "gun house" but I have no objection to calling it a turret. The source also mentions that the 4.5 inch measurement was for Erebus only; Terror started at 5 inches. I've adjusted the infobox. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The source with the armour detail uses "gun house" but I have no objection to calling it a turret. The source also mentions that the 4.5 inch measurement was for Erebus only; Terror started at 5 inches. I've adjusted the infobox. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you want to use dual gun instead of twin gun, but no problem.
 * I have no preference on it. I just inserted "dual" where you said I needed to indicate a mount with two guns. Twin or double can work just as fine as an alternative. I've switched it to twin. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no preference on it. I just inserted "dual" where you said I needed to indicate a mount with two guns. Twin or double can work just as fine as an alternative. I've switched it to twin. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Now for the lead: I generally don't give the shipyard and its location as I think that it's redundant to the paragraph covering the ship's construction, but feel free to disagree. Take a gander at any of the ship FAs for examples. I'd merge the first two paragraphs and swap around some info in the first two sentences to tell the reader that 1915–1916 was during the First World War. Forex, "built for the Royal Navy during the First World War at..." "Completed in 1916, she was assigned to the Dover Patrol where her primary duties..."


 * Need to add links to geographical locations, battles, and organizations.
 * I am mindful of the guidance on overlinking the lead section. Let me know if you think the balance is now wrong. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the only link problem is that there isn't one for the Dover Patrol. Terms need to be linked on first appearance. People have differing ideas of on what constitutes overlinking. Personally, I almost always only link once, disregarding the infobox (terms in the infobox always need to be linked), so if it's linked in the lede, it doesn't need to be linked again as I feel that's kinda insulting to the reader's intelligence. Others treat the lede and the main body as separate sections so terms will be linked in the lede and in the main body. I only do that for very long articles where a reader might not remember what in the first para of the lede means by the time they get to the very last paragraph. The most fundamental rule of overlinking is not to link a term more than once within either the lede or the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the only link problem is that there isn't one for the Dover Patrol. Terms need to be linked on first appearance. People have differing ideas of on what constitutes overlinking. Personally, I almost always only link once, disregarding the infobox (terms in the infobox always need to be linked), so if it's linked in the lede, it doesn't need to be linked again as I feel that's kinda insulting to the reader's intelligence. Others treat the lede and the main body as separate sections so terms will be linked in the lede and in the main body. I only do that for very long articles where a reader might not remember what in the first para of the lede means by the time they get to the very last paragraph. The most fundamental rule of overlinking is not to link a term more than once within either the lede or the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a very abrupt transition between the current third and fourth paragraphs. You need to tell the reader something like "After the beginning of the Second World War in August 1939, Terror was transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet on date"


 * You need to add variety on how you refer to the ship. You almost exclusively use pronouns. Use a mixture of her name, she/her, the ship and the monitor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Always tell the reader what type of ship a vessel is upon first appearance with links. Forex "the corvette Salvia and the minesweeper Fareham", etc. I need to work some more on Manchester, but I'll go through your description section in an hour or two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is everything you have raised for the moment. I'm not in any rush for the next steps though as I have a project report to write for work, so feel free to take your time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is everything you have raised for the moment. I'm not in any rush for the next steps though as I have a project report to write for work, so feel free to take your time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Status query
Sturmvogel 66, From Hill To Shore, where does this review stand. Tomorrow, it will have been open for three months; is there any chance it can be wrapped up soon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to resume whenever you are. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that is everything you have asked for up to now. I noticed that you have removed "first published" from the cite book templates, however that goes against current guidance on the template, "orig-year: Original publication year; displays in square brackets after the date (or year). For clarity, please supply specifics. For example: |orig-year=First published 1859 or |orig-year=Composed 1904. Alias: origyear." Is there a reason to go against guidance in this case? From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, let's do this.
 * Need to add laid down and commissioning or completion dates in the construction para, and, optionally, an order date. Link laid down, launched and commissioning.
 * Everything in the infobox needs to be covered, so beam, draught, etc. need to be added.
 * When I see reciprocating engine, I think of internal combustion engines, so tell the reader that they're triple-expansion steam engines.
 * Tell the reader what the purpose of the steel tubes in the bulge was.
 * Watch your roundings into metric. Generally a |0 is added to the template to force it to convert accurately. The roundings in the infobox are correct. Make sure that they match the ones in the design para.
 * ✅ I think they did match when I put them in but then you applied new roundings to the infobox. I have gone back through the article to make sure they align (I think it was just the 15 in, 4 in and 0.5 in that weren't aligned). However, I am not sure I follow your logic of when to set |0 or |1 on the template, so there may be other measurements set the wrong way. Please point them out specifically if you spot them as guessing which items you mean will just drag this out longer. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The specific remaining example is 6 in, which needs the |0. Generally anytime you see a whole number of inches that is being converted into metric that ends in a round number, it's being rounded, which is not to be borne. |0 or |1 forces the templates to convert to the nearest whole number (152 mm) for 6 inches, or to a single digit past the decimal point like 1 inch equal 25.4 mm. Another thing is that you only need to convert a measurement in the main body on first appearance, so you can delete the extra 76 mm, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Move the bit about the function of the class to the opening sentence of the section and add something about how they compared to the preceding class of monitors.
 * Consider consolidating all the info about the hull size/displacement etc. and the bulge info into one paragraph, splitting all the engine/speed info into a separate para, and consolidating all the armament info into a single paragraph.
 * ✅ There is still some splitting but I have rephrased the section into modifications on the previous class and then details of implementation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to add a para with brief description of her armour, covering all the spots mentioned in the infobox.
 * In note 2, what do you mean by 12 long cwt? The word long is the problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This was what I was agonising over in the review earlier when you asked me to convert all measurements the first time they are mentioned. I had started with a plain link to the article QF 12-pounder 12 cwt naval gun but converting the measurements presents problems. 12 pdr is easy as it has been converted already, however to convert cwt you have to decide which version of cwt you are talking about. Is it a short or a long Hundredweight? See Template:Convert/list of units/mass. The British use long cwt, so the assumption would be that is the correct measure. However the gun article has a manual conversion of mass stating "12 cwt (0.6 tons, 510 kg)" which doesn't convert to either the short or long hundredweight (which should give either 11 cwt or 10 cwt for that many kg). My sources are silent on the weight of the guns as they just say 12 pdr; the footnote tries to point out that there was more than one gun in common usage that met the 12 pdr description and leaves me trying to convert a weight without a source. Your suggestion on how to resolve this would be welcome. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two kinds of hundredweights? Those crazy Englishmen; I thought that two kinds of tons was bad enough! I had no idea and just linked to hundredweight without converting it. Gun weight isn't something important enough to warrant coverage in a ship article and should be reserved for the gun's article, IMO. The most important thing is to provide a bore diameter for the various pounder guns, which you've already done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the conversion of cwt from the footnote. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to add a para with brief description of her armour, covering all the spots mentioned in the infobox.
 * In note 2, what do you mean by 12 long cwt? The word long is the problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This was what I was agonising over in the review earlier when you asked me to convert all measurements the first time they are mentioned. I had started with a plain link to the article QF 12-pounder 12 cwt naval gun but converting the measurements presents problems. 12 pdr is easy as it has been converted already, however to convert cwt you have to decide which version of cwt you are talking about. Is it a short or a long Hundredweight? See Template:Convert/list of units/mass. The British use long cwt, so the assumption would be that is the correct measure. However the gun article has a manual conversion of mass stating "12 cwt (0.6 tons, 510 kg)" which doesn't convert to either the short or long hundredweight (which should give either 11 cwt or 10 cwt for that many kg). My sources are silent on the weight of the guns as they just say 12 pdr; the footnote tries to point out that there was more than one gun in common usage that met the 12 pdr description and leaves me trying to convert a weight without a source. Your suggestion on how to resolve this would be welcome. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two kinds of hundredweights? Those crazy Englishmen; I thought that two kinds of tons was bad enough! I had no idea and just linked to hundredweight without converting it. Gun weight isn't something important enough to warrant coverage in a ship article and should be reserved for the gun's article, IMO. The most important thing is to provide a bore diameter for the various pounder guns, which you've already done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the conversion of cwt from the footnote. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the conversion of cwt from the footnote. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The "first published" seems redundant and I disagree with the template documentation. I think that the year alone is more than sufficient in the vast majority of cases (I usually disagree with things that want me to type more). If you disagree, feel free to restore it and I won't object.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored the "first published" to the relevant entries. Not only is it in the guidance but I think it is very helpful to casual readers. I doubt that the majority of Wikipedia's audience will understand the difference between a date in round brackets and a date in square brackets, so it is just a potential source of confusion as to what the dates represent. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Change "being commissioned" to something like received orders or somesuch. You're using commissioned in two different senses of the word and I don't want readers confused.
 * hulls 492 and 493 These are yard number s internal to Harlan & Wolff. Clarify this with the link along the lines of "two hulls given yard numbers 492 and 493" or somesuch. And the reference to the reinstatement of the ships might need to be adjusted as well.
 * Suggest breaking the subsequent armament changes into a separate subsection.
 * How much extra deck armor was added, if known?
 * ✅ I've clarified the amount of deck armour but introduced another ambiguity in that an unspecified amount of plating was added to the sides. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You might also consider moving the design and construction header down two paragraphs and adding a new header "Background" for the first two paragraphs.
 * "the" fall of shot
 * ✅ There were two mentions of this in the article, one with "the" and one without "the." Personally I think with "the" sounds more appropriate in both cases and have added it to the sentence that missed it. If you meant that "the" should have been removed then I will be happy to reconsider it (I might need to rephrase the sentence to get it to sound natural though). From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Change guard boat to guard ship and link it.
 * Link Vice-Admiral, Generally link geographic names on first use, Commander
 * ✅ I think I've linked all locations on their first mentions. Let me know if I have missed any. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's generally a good idea to avoid "however"s. Especially here since the floating docks haven't been mentioned previously so there's nothing to contrast it with.
 * ✅ I've removed the specific example you mentioned but there are still some instances in the rest of the article. Let me know if you have objections to the other instances. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Move the link for Dunkirk to first use.
 * the right forward what? Hull or bulge?
 * ✅ I have to be careful here to avoid close paraphrasing of the source material but I think my rewording has addressed your point. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't capitalize "Turret Drill Ship"
 * Be consistent if you're going to use feminine or neutral pronouns. And "the" (ship name). There are a couple of examples for Fastnet.
 * ✅ I think I caught them all but please point out specific sentences if there are any still there (I may be a little word blind after reading and rewriting this so many times). From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By 1939, the term super-dreadnought was rather passé
 * ✅ I've moved this to the modifications section and changed the description to "old battleship" but retained the link as pointing to super-dreadnought, as that is the term used on that ship's article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider breaking up the long Second World War section with a subheader beginning with her move to support Compass. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think that is everything done that you have raised so far. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Made one small change, but the rest looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Be consistent if you're going to use feminine or neutral pronouns. And "the" (ship name). There are a couple of examples for Fastnet.
 * ✅ I think I caught them all but please point out specific sentences if there are any still there (I may be a little word blind after reading and rewriting this so many times). From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By 1939, the term super-dreadnought was rather passé
 * ✅ I've moved this to the modifications section and changed the description to "old battleship" but retained the link as pointing to super-dreadnought, as that is the term used on that ship's article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider breaking up the long Second World War section with a subheader beginning with her move to support Compass. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think that is everything done that you have raised so far. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Made one small change, but the rest looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)