Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Courageous-class battlecruiser


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Courageous class battlecruiser

 * Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think that it meets the standard and it's part of my nefarious scheme to bring all the British BCs up to FA class. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - the first and third paras of "design and description" have slightly different accounts of the importance of the 'Baltic project' to the design - there should probably be only one paragraph discussing the Baltic project, setting out all the relevant points of view. The Land (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Any views on this point? I think ti's quite an important one... The Land (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments: Just a few technical comments at the moment. I will come back after I've read the article a few times:
 * no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
 * alt text could be added to the images, although this is not a requirement (suggestion only);
 * images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required). AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in the lead "...lessons learned thus far during the war" doesn't sound quite right to me, can I suggest rewording to "...the lessons that had been learned earlier in the war"?
 * Agreed
 * in the lead, I suggest wikilinking "barbette" if the article exists,
 * Done
 * in the Design section you have "15-inch" and then "eighteen-inch", I think it would be best if eighteen-inch was displayed as "18-inch";
 * Done
 * in the Design section, this - "...philosophy of speed over everything" - sounds a little strange to me, like it is missing a word. Perhaps try this: "...philosophy of speed over everything else"?
 * Reworded it a bit. See how it reads.
 * Looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Design section, "The best example of this is from a letter..." seems a little awkward. Perhaps try this: "Fisher's adherence to this principle is highlighted in a letter he wrote to Churchill concerning the battlehsips of the 1912-13 Naval Estimates. In the letter, dated April 1912, Fisher stated: "There must be sacrifice of..."
 * I like your wording much better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fisher's desire for a shallow draught was not merely based on a desire..." The word "desire" is mentioned twice in this sentence, perhaps reword?
 * Need instead of desire will suffice, I think.
 * Same issue with "thus far" as mentioned in the lead - thus far indicates present tense (to my ear, at least), but it should be in past tense, so perhaps "at that point of the war" or something similar;
 * How does it read now?
 * Looks good, and good work decyphering my cryptic comment (I just realised how poorly I phrased this point!) AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "reevaluation" I think should be hyphenated as "re-evaluation";
 * Done.
 * in the Protection section, it says "After the Battle of Jutland 110 long tons...of extra protection was added to the deck..." Why was this? I seem to remember reading something somewhere about one of the Royal Navy ships blowing up at Jutland, but can't remember the details - was this the reason?
 * Yes, and I've added a little fuller explanation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Ships section, the information included in the table probably needs citations;
 * Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Post-war history section, "reused" I think should be hyphenated as "re-used";
 * Is this a Brit English thing? Because my dictionary doesn't use a hyphen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, I'd just go with your dictionary if that's what it says. Its no major drama. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Post-war history section, the Main article link would probably look better I think if it were directly under the section title rather than in the middle of the section. Either, that or the link to the Courageous class aircraft carrier article could be added in to the prose. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Only a few minor nitpicks A light copyedit might be beneficial when you head FAC-wards, but other than that all I can say is congratulations on yet another well-researched, interesting article :)  EyeSerene talk 11:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Courageous class were a class of three battlecruisers" or "...was a class of three battlecruisers"? Personally I'd say it should be "was" because class is singular, but English has some odd rules.
 * I always reword this kind of thing if possible, because one way sounds just wrong to Americans and the other way sounds just wrong to Brits.
 * Sounds like a wise solution :) EyeSerene talk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The repetition of "supposedly" (in the lead and first para of Design and description) makes the text come across as uncertain and even teasing. Were they designed for the Baltic or not? Was there some subterfuge going on behind the scenes?
 * Great question. Enquiring minds want to know. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I was waiting for the big reveal while reading through. EyeSerene talk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Supposedly is there because it was only one reason used to justify the existence of these ships; Fisher said that was why to one person and used other reasons to other people. Roberts is the only source who covers their origin in some detail and even he doesn't come to any conclusion. "... the evidence in the case of the three large light cruisers is far from clear. It seems likely that while Fisher did, initially, see them primarily for this role [Baltic Project] he never had an absolutely fixed plan in mind. His statements as to their purpose varied from time to time and it seems much more rational that he envisaged a number of roles for the ships which affected the requirements of the design."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Strumvogel, that makes it much clearer. I've tried a little rewording - what do you think? Please rv if you're not happy with my tweaks. EyeSerene talk 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "...three divisions of minesweepers, eight German: sperrbrechers (cork-filled trawlers) and two trawlers..." I don't think you need the link to German language in the middle of this sentence; it breaks up the sentence and makes it difficult to parse.
 * Agreed, about to delete that link. On the question of whether to use the German word: it's often a hard call, it is here, I trust SVs judgment generally on these, and this English-language Google search does seem to support that the word is widely used in English sources.  Btw, "cork-filled trawlers" is probably not the parenthetical definition I would use based on what I saw in the links; I saw minesweepers, minesweepers with flak cannons, minesweepers that used huge magnets, etc.
 * I'd have thought "eight sperrbrechers (appropriate definition) and two trawlers..." would be fine - from the context it's clear that it's a German word. EyeSerene talk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sperrbrecher is a complicated word. In WWI it's used for ships designed to clear minefields by hitting the mines and were filled with cork, etc. to allow them to survive the explosion. I'm uncertain if they usually operated normal minesweeping gear during the war or not. In WW2 it was used for small minesweepers of about the same size as in WWI that were often used as escorts for coastal convoys and consequently fitted with flak guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Another fine article - well done all. EyeSerene talk 16:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One light copyedit, coming up. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * Can anyone tell me if "learned" sounds plain wrong to British ears? If so, we'll have to go with "learnt" (ugh). - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Learnt" is preferred in Br-E, but personally I wouldn't object too much to "learned". I think "learned" probably sounds less odd to British ears than "learnt" does to Americans, though it does sound juvenile (at least to me)... by which I mean it's the kind of thing British children say when they first discover the past participle -ed ending and use it inappropriately (ie "singed" instead of "sang"/"sung"). EyeSerene talk 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, okay that's what I was afraid of, I'm rewriting that sentence to avoid "learned". - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. A few questions:
 * turret, not turret (fixed ... just mentioning it because it keeps coming up)
 * Just me being lazy, I'll try to remember next time.
 * "To save time, the installation used ...": design time? construction time?
 * Design.
 * What does "T.I." mean in "triple T.I."?
 * What are "PI* mounts"?
 * Got rid of both designations.
 * "as it lacked the layers of empty and full compartments": that might be fine like it is, but would "and" be better than "as"?
 * No, because there's a causal relationship between the two clauses.
 * Does "reached their absolute limit of advance" mean something different from "stopped"?
 * Yes (sort of). They reached a line on their maps past which they were forbidden to pass because of mines. Stopped implies lack of movement.
 * Okay, I tried "At 9:30 the 1st CS reached the line they had been ordered not to cross due to the threat of mines"; see if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still not great. This is easily dealt with in military jargon like "stop line", but then you have to define it, which is hard to do so that it reads easily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What would be better? - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it to say "limit of its assigned combat area", but if it's important to mention the mines it could say "approached an area thought to be mined so the pursuit was broken off" or something? EyeSerene talk 16:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you're in the right ballpark; right now I'm thinking along the long of "turned south to avoid minefields marked on their maps" or some such. It should tie in, I think, to the fact that the Admiralty's information on minefields was not distributed equally to all ships so that Courageous and Glorious turned aside from an area that the light cruisers charged blithely into. This needs to be added to the article on the battle at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Courageous fired 92 rounds of 15 inch while Glorious fired 57. They also fired 180 and 213 four-inch shells respectively.": seems like it belongs in the previous paragraph. You're the boss, but I'm wondering how many readers need this much detail.
 * Beats me, but I'm hardly a typical reader. But I always like to add that sort of gunnery detail to show how infrequently they actually hit anything. I added a bit reminding the reader that they only scored a single hit for all of those big shells expended.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support minor issues that I brought up have all been addressed. One issue of wording has not been addressed but I am reasonably certain that it will be resolved. Since it is insignificant, there is no reason not to support this nomination. Comment - a few picky c/e questions I wanted to run by you :] I'm prone to being clueless about convention + such, so feel free to correct me. It's improved a lot since it was first put up for A-class review ! Overall the article reads pretty nicely now (thank the awesome previous c/e'rs). I've made a few corrections of my own on the main article. Of course you can always disagree, give feedback, etc. :]  Icy  // ♫ 14:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The first two Courageous-class battlecruisers were designed in 1915 to meet a set of requirements laid down with his Baltic Project in mind by the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, Admiral Fisher." (section: Design and description)
 * I'm aware this sentence has been changed (Dank?) - however, the way the sentence is structured leaves me a little lost. It's definitely more clear than "supposedly for his Baltic Project." Perhaps "The first two Courageous-class battlecruisers were designed in 1915 to meet a set of requirements that First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, Admiral Fisher laid down with his Baltic Project in mind."? Feedback?
 * Not mine; see above.
 * I do like that phrasing better.
 * "Fisher's desire for a shallow draught was not merely based on the need to allow for inshore operations, but reflected the lesson that ships tended to operate closer to deep load than anticipated and were found lacking in freeboard, reserve buoyancy and safety against underwater attack." (section: Design and description)
 * "Lesson" works, but doesn't feel quite appropriate - maybe "knowledge"? comments?
 * See if you like what I did. (<- that was Dank)
 * Yes indeed I like it. Thank you ! Icy  // ♫ 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The main guns of the Courageous-class ships were controlled from either of the two fire-control directors." (section: Fire-control)
 * I'm hesitant to change it to "... ships could be controlled from either..." because I don't know if that would change the meaning and potentially falsify the sentence. Are specific guns controlled by specific directors? It doesn't seem that way, but I am no expert and can't be sure.
 * Seems okay, but I agree that this is a place where the reader might be unclear and might want to know more, if anyone wants to elaborate. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, either director could control either turret. No specific assignments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, great - no apparent objections, so I've added that in. Icy  // ♫ 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "A preliminary raid on German minesweeping forces on 31 October by light forces destroyed ten small ships and the Admiralty decided on a larger operation to destroy the minesweepers and their escorting light cruisers." (section: Second Battle of Heligoland Bight)
 * Did the Admiralty decide on such the larger operation due to the previous raid's success? If so then maybe you can break up the sentence specifying that where you have "... and the Admiralty..." right now.
 * If the sources say why certain decisions were made, we can repeat that, although personally I often doubt that the sources are wise or knowledgeable enough to be sure about intentions. But if the sources don't say, then we shouldn't insert that; it's okay to let the reader infer the connection, though. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I'm not at home right now and can't check the exact wording, but my memory is that the Admiralty wasn't satisfied with the success of the first op and wanted a bigger bag the second time around.
 * Unless you will be home pretty soon and will have a chance to check that out (and it's not too much of a bother), I'm not going to fuss. Thanks ! Icy  // ♫ 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 required the signatory nations to severely curtail their plans for new warships as well as scrapping others." (section: Post-war history)
 * Eh... I'm a little lost here. The tenses feel a little mixed up - unless the Treaty itself is scrapping plans for new warships, I can't see why it isn't "required the signatory nations to severely curtail their plans for new warships as well as scrap others." Care to explain?
 * Doh, good catch. Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Tinkered with this section some more. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lookin' good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great job! - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.