Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Hood (51)/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 Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011.

HMS Hood (51)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

HMS Hood symbolized the British Empire before World War II and her sinking by the German battleship Bismarck in 1941 was a huge shock. This article had an extensive MilHist A-class review and I believe that it meets the criteria for featured article status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Transcluded 15:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC). Let's conduct FAC reviews at WT:FAC, please; premature commentary moved to talk.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Brassey's Naval and Shipping Annual 1924 (p. 422)" - is this worth having as a bibliography entry?
 * Not since I don't have a copy to hand to add the required additional information.
 * Check for consistent italicization
 * This is an issue only in the refs aside from the italicized quotes where the ship's name is not italicized to stand out from the quote.
 * Yes, it's an issue in refs. Can it be fixed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * HMS or H.M.S. Hood?
 * Current standard for RN ship articles is to omit the periods in HMS.
 * Okay, then do this consistently in citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * FN 37: which Preston?
 * Added.
 * Missing bibliographic info for Bastrop
 * FN 71: publisher, retrieval date?
 * Merged into another ref.
 * FN 75: why hyphens?
 * Fixed.
 * FN 77: supports that both brothers are mentioned on the gravestone, but not some of the rest of the content
 * This is a little trickier. This mentions that the chapel includes a roll of honour in which most likely, Spinner is mentioned, although that's not explicitly spelled out. I can delete or not the bit about the chapel, although I think it's pretty much a given that he's listed since the Association maintains the roll of honour there.
 * Be consistent in how "et al" is notated
 * Fixed.
 * Be consistent in whether you disambiguate shortened citations using titles or dates
 * Fixed.
 * No citations to Bastock, Preston 2002 (unless FN 37 is to this Preston)
 * Fixed.
 * Conway or Conway Maritime Press? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The publisher's name changed over time. It's given as per the book.
 * Sneaking suspicion that Bastrop and Bastock are one and the same, as Bastock p. 38 places the Special Service Squadron at the scuttling of HMAS Australia. However, while it mentions the Danae class cruisers, Bastock does not mention the presence or absence of Hood. (Other sources I have access to relating to the sinking also fail to specify Hood's presence or absence at the scuttling, and generally fail to specify beyond "the Special Service Squadron"). -- saberwyn 11:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Text doesn't specify that Hood was there, only the Squadron. Thanks for the comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - no dab links, have fixed link 71, all other ELs are OK. GermanJoe (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Hood was significantly larger than her predecessors of the Renown class. As completed she had an overall length of 860 feet 7 inches (262.3 m), a maximum beam of 104 feet 2 inches (31.8 m), and a draught of 32 feet (9.8 m) at deep load. This was 110 feet (33.5 m) longer and 14 feet (4.3 m) wider than the older ships. She displaced 42,670 long tons (43,350 t) at load and 46,680 long tons (47,430 t) at deep load, over 13,000 long tons (13,210 t) more than the older ships. The ship had a complete double bottom."
 * Where are the citations? Reformation32 (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the middle of the next sentence. That cite covers everything in the paragraph thus far.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"one is in private hands" --> should be "one is private property" Reformation32 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Private hands is a very common phrase for this sort of situation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhat un-encyclopedic. Reformation32 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed it to "privately held"; better? - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Media Review - Captions not checked
 * I have serious concerns about File:Sinking of HMS Hood.jpg's status as PD. The situation is this; the image of the painting was taken from the U.S. Naval Historical Center, which asserts that as far as they know, every image there is PD. Okay, but the painting is done by, best I can tell, Propaganza Krieg (PK) Lieutenant Julius Ceasar Schmitz-Westerholt, a German military officer. I couldn't find any German equivalent to PD-USGov-Military, and this had to have been produced sometime after 24 May 1941, so I'm really not sure where the painting is in the Public Domain.
 * Everything else looked good. I'll to the caption check tomorrow.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The photo is most definitely PD but the painting may not be. This should be licensed with PD-art once the copyright of the painting can be determined. Brad (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the image is noted as courtesy of the US Army's Chief of Military History, the painting may well have been captured by the Army and retained as war booty.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'll note that I have an email from the NHHC somewhere which explicitly states that the NHHC considers all images on their web page to be PD. I'm going to assume for some images that this is applicable only in the US, but that's solvable by hosting the images on en.wiki instead of Commons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Brad: It dosen't work that way. Taking a photograph of a copyrighted piece of art does not eliminate the original copyright claim, it applies to the photograph as well.
 * @Sturmvogel: Would that change the copyright status? I honestly don't know. Also, how would we find out about such a thing.
 * @Ed: If you already have a line of communication open with the NHHC, it is very much worth it to send them an email asking for clarification. They might be able to help us figure this out.
 * As it stands, this image still makes me uncomfortable.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a clarification email. I don't have any current communication lines open; the correspondence was back in 2009, and I suspect we would get the same answer. The person who answered my email gave three possibilities for photographs that aren't official U.S. Navy photographs: either they entered the public domain before the copyright laws were altered to their current form (NA in this case), if the "image appears to be an "orphan" where copyright is concerned" (applies here), or is probably an official photograph but it was not explicitly marked as such (NA in this case). Given this, I think we can assume it is war booty, as that would make it one of these "orphan"s.
 * Here's the complicated part. If this was painted and published in 1941, that would mean that the German copyright lapsed this year. However, the USRAA would have restored the US copyright on a normal image like this because it was still under copyright in 1996. So, assuming the 1941 publishing date is true (would need proof), Commons would accept it, but we would need to note that (a) it is war booty = avoids the USRAA = PD in the United States, and (b) it is PD in Germany and other countries due to the 70 years' lapse.
 * In short: this image is PD, but we will need to find a first publishing date of 1941 if it is to be hosted on Commons. Otherwise uploading to en.wiki will suffice. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That popping sound you just heard was my brain (:D). Oh, and the caption check is done, everything on that end is good.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the Army Center for Military History to see if they can clarify its status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The copyright of the painting still needs a resolution. Ask at commons for help. There are experienced people there. Photos of artwork are a whole different ballgame. Brad (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the painting pending resolution of the copyright issue. No response from the Center of Military History yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Status report: Nikki's two remaining concerns have been dealt with (no "H.M.S." now in the text, and Hood is consistently italicized in the end sections). The only image under discussion has been removed.  I've pinged Ed; he hadn't looked at Sturm's replies yet. Ed has responded; best I can tell, everyone is happy.  It's my understanding that Sturm has passed previous spot-checking (and if he hasn't, there's no hope for the rest of us. :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Support passed the article at GA and can see no reason not to promote to FA. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I ran Earwig ([]) on the article and got no results. An unbiased party might wish to do the same and report back to settle the copyvio criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That also might be because the copyvio bots are down. See User:Corensearchbot, which I believe is down for the same reason. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments by Ed Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "At this point in her service, Hood's usefulness had deteriorated because of advances in naval gunnery." Was it just gunnery? Better engines and armor distributions probably played a part too (especially the former).
 * Without the gunnery advances (i.e. long-range gunnery), the lack of horizontal problem wouldn't have been an issue. She was still plenty fast, but her engines were needed replacing with smaller, lighter, more modern machinery like that used on the Renown class BCs. That might have saved enough weight to adequately armor her decks as I believe the Brits planned to do if war hadn't broken out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a long time since I looked at sources on the Lexingtons, but I'm pretty sure one of the three(?) redesigns were due to the Brits sharing plans for Hood with the US Navy. Might be worth including a sentence on this, but that's up to you. Otherwise I really like the "Battlecruiser or Fast Battleship" section.
 * It's a bit more complicated than just Hood's plans; the up-armoring of Renown and Repulse seems also to have played a role.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I wonder if my sources simplified the matters too much? Anyway, that's fine then. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Most seriously, the deck protection was flawed—spread over three decks, it was designed to detonate an incoming shell on impact with the top deck, with much of the energy being absorbed as the exploding shell had to penetrate the armour of the next two decks. The development of effective time-delay shells at the end of World War I made this scheme much less effective, as the intact shell would penetrate layers of weak armour and explode deep inside the ship" Was anything ever done about this?
 * Nope. Plans were made, but nothing was ever actually done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article on Cervera says "On 21 April, Almirante Cervera, along with the Galerna, was involved in a three-hour long confrontation with the Battleship HMS Hood and the destroyer HMS Firedrake, when the insurgent warships fired upon three British merchantmen in a fruitless attempt to stop them. After blunt exchanges between the Hood and the Cervera, the freighters slipped into Bilbao supported by the fire of a coastal battery and the Basque armed trawler Biskaya.[15][16]", whereas this article only says "On 23 April 1937, the ship escorted three British merchantmen into Bilbao harbour despite the presence of the Nationalist cruiser Almirante Cervera that attempted to blockade the port". First, the dates conflict, but second, I think this would be worth including, as firing salvos at each other seems rather important. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They didn't fire at each other. Cerveza fired across the bow of one merchantman, but backed off when Hood trained her entire broadside at her. The date is correct according to my source, although my other source on Firedrake says 19 April. Just to confuse things!
 * Heh, having eight 15-inch guns would be a good deterrent! Looks good to me then. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Query Support I've only reviewed this in terms of prose and internal consistency, but my queries have been addressed and in my opinion it is of FA standard.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  13:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work, well written. I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki,....
 * I may be displaying complete ignorance here, but aren't propellers the same as screws, and if so shouldn't we standardise?
 * Done.
 * "Around 1918, the US naval staff in Great Britain became extremely impressed by the Hood which was described as a "fast battleship"," would that be which they described as a fast battleship, if not could you give an idea who described her so?
 * Named.
 * Unless I'm missing something this still seems odd to me. "became extremely impressed by Hood which was described as a "fast battleship", so they advocated that the US Navy develop a fast battleship of its own" in my view should either be "became extremely impressed by Hood which they described as a "fast battleship", and they advocated that the US Navy develop a fast battleship of its own" or "became extremely impressed by Hood which was described by ???? as a "fast battleship", so they advocated that the US Navy develop a fast battleship of its own". depending on whether the US observers or someone else disagreed with the Royal Navy description and thought she was a Fast Battleship rather than a Battlecruiser.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reworded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Captain Pridham was relieved by Captain Harold Walker on 20 May 1938 and was relieved of command when the ship returned to Portsmouth in January 1939" I think this needs something like "Captain Pridham was relieved by Captain Harold Walker on 20 May 1938 and he in turn was relieved of command when the ship returned to Portsmouth in January 1939"
 * Agreed.
 * Three survivors were picked up. Were any bodies recovered or are they all missing and presumed to be in the ship?
 * Curiously, no bodies were seen by the rescuing destroyer.
 * Thanks, I think that might be worth adding.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The UK may have designated it as a war grave, but it isn't in UK waters. Does that designation have any meaning in international law?
 * I'm not a specialist in maritime law, but I believe that countries retain rights over their sunken warships, even if in international waters. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From Protection of Military Remains Act: ""The law concerning protected places applies anywhere in the world, but in practice, outside the UK, the sanctions can only be enforced against UK citizens, UK flagged ships, or vessels landing in the UK, unless backed by local legislation." - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank. I guess that's a pedanticism too far for this article. but a International law re War graves in International waters would be an interesing article.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.