Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS New Zealand (1911)/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 SandyGeorgia 23:15, 6 January 2012.

HMS New Zealand (1911)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria. It had a MILHIST ACR a few months ago and I've revised it a little since then. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * To match HMAS Australia, I added namesake, builder to infobox.
 * Good catch.
 * Could you add/cite honours (HELIGOLAND, DOGGER BANK,JUTLAND), id/pennant, and motto, if it had one.
 * I don't have any RS data on that stuff.
 * Honours and id/pennant should be in a source that describes the ship, I'd double check yours and/or maybe another editor can help. Kirk (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That sort of thing is usually presented in a book dedicated to the ship, which aren't all that common. My sources generally cover all the ships of a type in a given navy and lack that sort of detail. They usually focus on the technical side of things with only brief summaries of operational histories.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked around in the usual places and didn't find anything; I'm ok with no pennant or motto, but I'm not giving upon the battle honours - it has to be somewhere!
 * David Thomas' Battles and honours of the Royal Navy (Leo Cooper, 1998, ISBN 085052623X) apparently comtains lists of all honours plus ships awarded them; this might be a useful approach if a specific history fails. Shimgray | talk | 14:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew that there was a specialized reference or two that covered these, but no copy is convenient to me right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ordered date is a little unclear - I can't tell if its 22 March 1909 or not. Kirk (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes two of us; I've deleted the order data from the infobox as too vague. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There certainly is no rhyme or reason to the level of detail, or lack there of, for capital ships in these supposed authoritative sources... Kirk (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I expect that the usual purging of archival sources accounts for the spottiness of certain types of details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'lucky ship' portion of the lead is spread out in the body except I didn't find the phrase 'lucky ship'; you'd think there would be a wiki link for that term but its not evident as far as I can tell. In any case, I think you should add the phrase 'lucky ship' to one of the cited sentences about the Maori connection or leave it out of the lead. Kirk (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that the exact phrase isn't cited, but I think that's it's implicit in the Grant Howard quote and the other references to the Maori artifacts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - another interesting ship article. Kirk (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Check alphabetization of References
 * Good catch.
 * Be consistent in how page ranges are notated
 * Another good catch.
 * be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
 * Done.
 * Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or not
 * There's always one that sneaks through, dammit.
 * Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Based on intelligence reports it decided on 17 November and allocated": ?. Also, see WP:Checklist. I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Oxford Dictionaries gives "east-south-east" as the correct hyphenation; you've got a bunch of different styles in this article. Other styles may be okay if you can find them in a British dictionary, but they should be consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but the best I can tell, "east-south-east" is the most common hyphenation in BritEng, although it's inconsistent, and the AmEng style (east southeast or east-southeast) seems to appear more and more often in newer sources. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm making the changes now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I never can remember what the rules, if any, are about hyphenating directions. I tend only to do so if there are three all together like west-southwest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Running through one more time, it's looking good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This ngram suggests that Imperial German Navy beats German Imperial Navy ... does that sound right to you? - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the literature has always read Imperial X Navy. Somebody must have changed on me without me noticing. I'll change it back now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "attached to 1st Battlecruiser Squadron": consistency needed on "the" (1st). [Nevermind, there was just one of those and I got it.] Also, "1st Cruiser Squadron covered by the reinforced 1st Battlecruiser Squadron and, more distantly, the 1st Battle Squadron": putting all 3 in one sentence is a bit hard to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The times used in this section are in UTC, which is one hour behind CET, which is often used in German works.": I'm confused here. Per Time in the United Kingdom, 1916 was the first year of British DST, and "For 1916, DST extended from 21 May to 1 October, with transitions at 02:00 standard time." That article doesn't say what the offset was; Stephen Ambrose says the offset was 2 hours in WWII, and Germany (and France) didn't use DST in WWII, so the Brits were actually 1 hour ahead of the Germans.  Do you know the DST situation for WWI? - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it was one hour - see here. Ambrose is correct that there was a two-hour offset in WWII, but it's not a two-hour increment in April - the country actually stayed on BST year round, and moved an extra hour in the summer, to what was called "Double Summer Time"; see British Summer Time. Germany seems to have used some form of daylight savings, though, per Daylight saving time in Germany, both in WWII and in WWI. If I read things correctly, UK time in summer 1916 should thus be UTC+1, and German time UTC+2. Shimgray | talk | 18:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To keep things interesting, here's Ambrose, D-Day, p. 19: "French time was one hour earlier. Throughout Nazi-occupied Europe, clocks were set at Berlin time, and the Germans did not use daylight savings time, while the British set their clocks two hours ahead." - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarrant, who uses mostly German sources, is an hour ahead of Campbell, Massie and the others that rely on British sources. My sources don't mention any DST issues that I remember.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That must be right, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Decide whether you want Grand Fleet to be singular or plural: "This allowed the Grand Fleet to cross Scheer's T, and they badly damaged his leading ships" vs. "the Grand Fleet steered north in the erroneous belief that it had entered a minefield." - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Got it. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm still confused by "the 1st Cruiser Squadron covered by the reinforced 1st Battlecruiser Squadron and, more distantly, the 1st Battle Squadron of battleships", because the first link says that the 1st Cruiser Squadron was renamed "1st Battlecruiser Squadron" before this took place. - Dank (push to talk) 05:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the last sentence of the 1st CS article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Had the 1st Battle Squadron been renamed the "Grand Fleet" by this time, or is that page wrong? - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Home Fleet was renamed Grand Fleet, although how I can see how you read it that way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I see. No objection. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sturm, this article was nominated on November 30th; per FAC instructions, nominators are supposed to have only one FAC up at a time. When you nominated this on November 30th, Arizona had no support and one opppose, and it was not promoted until December 6. Since I've just now seen this, I won't remove this FAC, but please do not nominate two articles at once again without getting leave from a delegate. I could be wrong, but I thought we already had this conversation. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I could be wrong, but isn't it still allowed to have one nom and one co-nom up at the same time? Arizona was a co-nom. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, ha ... thanks for the reminder! My bad, my apologies!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had to deal with holiday chores and a 2-week WP backlog at the same time, I'd go batty :) Take your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Indefatigable_class_battlecruiser_diagrams_Brasseys_1923.jpg: if the author is not identified, how do you know he/she died more than 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Replaced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Usual nice effort, 'pon which I've performed my usual prose edits, so pls check I haven't changed any meaning inadvertently. In addition:
 * The Indefatigable class was not a significant improvement on the preceding Invincible class; the main difference was the enlargement of the design to give the ships' two wing turrets a wider arc of fire. -- "Enlargement of the design" reads a bit oddly to me; were they using bigger blueprints? Better to say "dimensions" or some such, methinks...
 * I've seen this has been actioned, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...the battlecruisers, led by Beatty aboard his flagship, HMS Lion (1910), began to head south at full speed; the rising tide meant that German capital ships would be able to clear the bar at the mouth of the Jade estuary -- Not sure I get the full significance of this sentence, from two perspectives. First off, where's south in relation to the combat zone -- rather than give the compass direction Beatty headed, why not state where he was going re. say the light forces you've just mentioned? Second, if the German ships could clear the bar, so what -- did that mean they could escape or they could engage?
 * Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If SMS Ariadne was "directly to [Beatty's] front", why did he have to "turn[ed] to pursue"? Wouldn't he just go full speed ahead?
 * Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a general comment on the Battle of Heligoland Bight subsection, I can't see much about New Zealand anyway...
 * Not looking for a lot, even just a sentence about what she did, other than her captain wearing the tiki, would help... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All of my earlier responses seem to have disappeared. Odd. Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Beatty ordered New Zealand to rejoin the squadron and turned west for Scarborough -- Can I confirm this is what you mean, that Beatty turned west for Scarborough after ordering NZ to rejoin the squadron? Just want to make sure you didn't mean "turn" instead of "turned"...
 * This is the quote from Massie: Pursuit of Roon was abandoned, New Zealand was ordered to rejoin the battle cruiser squadron, and Beatty turned all of his ships directly toward Scarborough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, no prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * New Zealand fired 147 shells at Blücher before the German ship capsized and sank at 12:07 after being torpedoed -- Do we know who did the torpedoing?
 * Seen this actioned, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Referencing, structure, detail and -- apart from Nikki's query above -- supporting materials all appear fine.
 * I note you've actioned Nikki's point above, so happy with all this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If nobody beats me to it I'll try and perform a spotcheck of online sources at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm away from my library right now, so I'll deal with these questions in a couple of days when I get back home.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - initially reviewed earlier versions of this article did not recognise adequately the importance of the piu-piu and tiki to the unique 'regimental tradition' of this ship. Now it's been work in very well, including the last battle 'he's got them on' as a sidebox. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comments Close to support, but some niggles: Consider all of the below struck, supporting now. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead: Why the easter egg link to Early naval vessels of New Zealand?
 * I'm not the expert on links, but I don't see how this is an WP:EGG problem. That's the section that explains the "gift to Britain". - Dank (push to talk)
 * Lead: "She had been intended for the China Station, but was released by the New Zealand government at the request of the Admiralty for service in British waters." if she was a gift, why did the New Zealand government have to give permission for her to serve in British waters? An explanation here would help flesh out the lede, which is a bit skimpy.
 * The language in the lead implies that the gift came with an agreement on how or where the ship was to be used, though I don't know that that's the case. - Dank (push to talk)
 * See the last sentence of the first para in the acquisition and construction section and the 2nd para of the Service section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * General note: I believe that the MOS wants double quotes instead of single quotes for things like "...identified as 'A' and 'X' respectively." Yep .. see Manual of Style.
 * Ealdgyth, I hope you'll pardon me for replies which may seem snippy ... they're not intended that way, but the issue was just raised again today at WT:FAC that prose is deficient at FAC these days ... assuming that this issue will be sitting on the table a few days, I'm going to have to respond when people imply that there are serious prose problems that I don't think are present. On this point, MOS also says, "There may be some conventional codified exceptions", and I've only seen single quotes around single letters at Milhist. I'll check around in style guides today. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Wartime modifications: "By 1918, New Zealand carried a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on flying-off ramps fitted on top of 'P' and 'Q' turrets." the only way I had of knowing these were planes was through linking through to them. Suggest "By 1918, New Zealand carried two aircraft - a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter on flying-off ramps fitted on top of 'P' and 'Q' turrets." to make this clearer. Mention of the usage of two aircraft might also help flesh out the lede a bit.
 * "The only way" ... well, that plus the fact that they're on "flying-off ramps" on an aircraft carrier, but I have no objection to "two aircraft, a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter,". - Dank (push to talk)
 * Dank - the ship's a battlecruiser. So ... the "flying-off ramps" could have been some weird projectile system also ... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, too many ship articles. Sure, the "two aircraft" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Acquisition: Why the sudden translation "...with the Imperial German Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine)." It's the English wikipedia, and while a translation might be useful on the Imperial German Navy article, here it just looks odd.
 * The German phrase is (and always has been) included because it predominates in some sources ... in fact, the WWII equivalent, the Kriegsmarine, doesn't seem to have a common English translation, so we just go with the German. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Battle of Heligoland Bight: Why "...under the command of Admiral Beatty." when everyone else is given a first name? Also, you link Admiral here, but no where else do you link the rank before a name?
 * Thanks, I missed that this was the first mention of him, fixed. Per my disclaimer, I don't have an opinion on the second issue. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Actually Admiral wasn't linked separately, but was accidentally included in the link for Beatty.
 * Battle of Heligoland Bight: Why "...led by Beatty aboard his flagship, Lion, began to head..." but later "....brand-new light cruiser HMS Arethusa had been crippled earlier..."?
 * Battle of Heligoland Bight: I know we stated at the lede that the ship never had casualties in battle - but it would probably be best to explicitly state that she took no hits or casualties in each engagement description.
 * I don't agree. The piu-piu, etc. are explicitly credited several times regarding that and the single hit that she received during Jutland is noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Raid on Scarborough: Shouldn't it be "HMS Lynx", "HMS Shark", and "SMS Roon" to fit with the convention you've used throughout?
 * Raid: Who is "Admiral Warrender"?
 * He's linked.
 * Raid: Again, aren't these missing an HMS or SMS? "...The light cruiser Southampton spotted the light cruiser Stralsund and..."?
 * Battle of Dogger Bank: Missing SMS? "...armoured cruiser Blücher's maximum..."
 * Battle of Dogger Bank: "...Beatty's flagship Lion, which..." already been linked that that far previously.
 * Indeed.
 * Battle of Dogger Bank: "New Zealand was relieved by HMAS Australia as flagship..." already linked in teh body and already has an HMAS...
 * Good catch.
 * Battle of Dogger Bank: "...but after a scouting Zeppelin located a British...already linked earlier in body of the article.
 * Yes. This is what I get for copy-pasting from other articles.
 * Battle of Dogger Bank: "...relieving HMS Indefatigable as flagship." - Indefatigable has already been linked in the body and already has HMS.
 * Fixed.
 * Battle of Jutland: Repeat link on "High Seas Fleet" in first paragraph.
 * Done.
 * Battle of Jutland: Need an HMS in front of Princess Royal, Tiger, Inflexible, and Castor
 * Battle of Jutland: Need SMS in front of Van der Tann, Moltke, Prinzregent Luitpold, Seydlitz, and Schleswig-Holstein
 * Post-Jutland: already have linked minesweeper earlier in the article, so the link in the second paragraph is redundant
 * Done.
 * Most of these are niggles, but the usage of HMS/SMS and such need to be consistent throughout the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first few (at least) criticisms about HMS/SMS above miss the point, which is that HMS and SMS can serve both as a heads-up that we're talking about a ship, and give the nationality of the ship ... but in cases where both of those things have already been established, they're unnecessary, and arguably redundant. I checked the first few of those you mentioned and was happy with inclusion or exclusion of the prefix, but I haven't checked all of them ... Sturm, could you do the honors? - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a question of consistency - it looks very odd to the casual non-military reader to occasionally have it and occasionally not. I THOUGHT I detected a pattern of having HMS or SMS on first usage, but it appears that I was wrong. This of course, leaves aside the fact that the abbreviations are never once explained in the article. This is why I get cranky reviewing MilHist articles - you guys often times do things that seem utterly incomprehensible to the non-miitary person. I get screamed at in MY noms to explain explain explain - would I not have to if I had some big wikiproject behind me so that they could just say "This is the way we do things"�? Sorry if I seem cranky, but I answered Sandy's call to have some reviews done - especially of topics that don't attract outside editors - and then I get a "we just do things this way, it's not worth trying to make things comprehensible to the non-specialist" vibe. I'm not really picking on you, Dank, but it seems every time I've reviewed milhist articles, I get the same issue... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to disengage now, the delegates can sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've standardized it so that each ship gets its prefix on first appearance. Also linked HMS and SMS on first appearance. I don't really mind having to explain things to laymen; it's just hard to remember what needs to be explained and to what level. I don't think that I've linked HMS in any of my British ship FAs before, but that's why it's good to have non-specialist reviewers. I just think that there are more people familiar with MilHist things than there are with medieval clerical terminology, so I don't get complaints about jargon as often as you do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Ealdgyth (you're all over FAC today!). Generally, on ship articles, I'm a layperson as well, but I've no problem sorting out the ship name on subsequent occurrences-- mostly because they're italicized anyway.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


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