Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Collingwood (1908)/archive1


 * 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2015.

HMS Collingwood (1908)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

HMS Collingwood was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships and frequently served as a flagship during her short career. Completed a few years before World War I, she played a minor role in the war with only participation in the Battle of Jutland enlivening the endless routine of patrols in the North Sea and training. Rendered obsolete by the ever-increasing size and power of more recent dreadnoughts, she became a training ship after the war until she was sold for scrap in 1922. The recent publication of her ship's log has confirmed what I've been otherwise been unable to document and I believe that she now meets the A-class criteria. As always, I'd like readers to look for stray usages of American English and unexplained jargon in addition to the normal things like prose, etc. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and hopefully only needs minor tweaking to fully satisfy the FAC criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Just one question that didn't come to me during the A-class review - the text of the WNT specifically mentions Collingwood as a ship Britain could retain for non-combatant use - any clue why the RN decided to get rid of her anyway? Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing about that in my sources, but neither Colossus nor Collingwood were retained as they could have been. My best guess is that the RN had plenty of ships that it could use for training and that the government felt that they was too expensive to operate in a time of fiscal austerity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and that makes sense to me. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * Jane's should be italicized in caption
 * Map could be slightly larger
 * File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
 * File:First_battle_squadron_in_the_North_Sea_(April_1915).jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Revised the licenses as necessary. Thanks for looking this over with your usual thoroughness.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to prefer to see File:First battle squadron in the North Sea (April 1915).jpg using a direct upload from the US source as opposed to the Dreadnaught Project, which doesn't link directly to the original image, but the licensing seems correct in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , - Are we waiting for follow-up or further action on this issue? -- Laser brain   (talk)  15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Andy, I wouldn't hold up promotion on this account (see exchange at the end of my comments below). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Singora (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RE: ALTERATIONS. "In addition, a pair of 3-inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns were added". WERE -> WAS. PAIR = SINGULAR
 * RE: CONSTRUCTION AND CAREER. "Including her armament, her cost is variously quoted at £1,680,888[3] or £1,731,640". Could you try "Costs including armament are quoted at £1,680,888 and £1,731,640"? I don't think you need the word "variously"; the word "or" seems wrong. Then again, maybe "or" is better than "and". But you do need to avoid repeating the word "her".
 * RE: WORLD WAR 1. "After arriving in Portland on 27 July, Collingwood (...) was ordered to proceed to Scapa Flow on 29 July". Could you not try "two days later"?
 * RE: WORLD WAR 1. You've used the phrase "fruitless sweep" twice in the opening paragraph.
 * RE: WORLD WAR 1. "did not become engaged" -> "did not participate".
 * RE: WORLD WAR 1. Paragraph four uses the word "severe" twice.
 * RE: BATTLE OF JUTLAND. "Prince Albert was a sub-lieutenant commanding the forward turret (...) and he sat in the open on the turret roof during a lull in the action". The word "he" is redundant.
 * RE: SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITY. "After the battle, the ship was transferred to ...". Is that comma necessary?
 * RE: SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITY. "Collingwood was sold to John Cashmore Ltd for scrap on 12 December and arrived at Newport, Wales on 3 March 1923 to begin demolition". The ship didn't begin anything; she went to Newport to be demolished.
 * Good suggestions, all, although I don't believe that you are correct regarding your first point. Forex, "the first pair of brothers were told..." "Were" is appropriate in both cases because the second noun in the sentence (guns or brothers) is plural. Thanks for taking time to look this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support from Sinfora Singora (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. I still think the word "pair" is singular (in fact I'm sure it is), but have zero interest in pursuing pedantic arguments.
 * 2. RE: "Collingwood was sold to John Cashmore Ltd for scrap on 12 December and arrived at Newport, Wales on 3 March 1923". This is better, but only works if your audience knows the nature of John Cashmore's business and the company's location. I think you need to tell readers that John Cashmore was a Newport-based scrapyard. Readers must understand why the HMS Collingwood went to south Wales.
 * 3. Good luck with your nomination! This is a very good article.

 Comments, leaning Support -- recused from coord duties to review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Prose/detail:
 * Copyedited as usual so let me know if I misunderstood anything.
 * Level of detail seems appropriate.
 * Structure -- this was the main thing that stood out for me initially:
 * Generally we see a couple of paragraphs in the lead of capital ship FAs, though admittedly this particular vessel didn't exactly have an action-packed career so if it doesn't bother other reviewers I won't make a fuss.
 * Also we have some single-paragraph subsections, which were discouraged by MOS last time I looked -- if there's no further info then there's no further info, but can any be usefully combined?
 * Lastly, Alterations is a level-4 subheader under Armour, which suggest the alterations were to the armour alone, whereas in fact they seem to cover various aspects of the ship -- this could be resolved by making Alterations a level-3 subheader, or perhaps you could merge the entire subsection as new paras under relevant subsections above (my preference as it would help resolve my previous point).
 * Source review:
 * References look sound and didn't spot any formatting errors.
 * For completeness, I'd have expected the very first para of Design and description to end with a citation.
 * Image review:
 * Deferring to Nikki but see note following her comments.
 * I've deleted most of the sub-headers in the description and your copy-edit looks fine. I'm getting a proxy error when I click on the link that you gave. In fact, I'm getting one for the entire navy history and heritage command website, so I'm not sure what's up with that. I could change the source for that photo to the old mirror of the naval history and heritage command site on ibiblio, but I'm not sure what value that would add over the dreadnought project link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like the entire site is down at the moment -- as I say, I'm satisfied that it's PD, and happy with the structural mods, so won't hold up support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  16:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.