Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic)


 * 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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic)

 * Nominator(s): Robert Brukner (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it substantially fulfils all the criteria, is a meaningful elaboration of the content of the main article Royal Canadian Navy, improves the overall quality of the current body of material about the Canadian military history and deepens a readers understanding of the topic. Robert Brukner (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, suggest withdrawal Thanks for developing and nominating this article Robert - it's very useful. However, it does not meet the A-class criteria at present as the great majority of its content is not covered by references. As some further comments:
 * I'd suggest that you consider using sortable tables to make it easier for readers to navigate and use the article; this would also allow you to add further details about the ships without compromising readability/usability (for an A-class list like this it would be good to at least say when each of the ships was commissioned and decommissioned).
 * All of the commissioned warships should be linked as they're notable, and potential subjects of articles in the future where they currently don't exist
 * Were the two World War Two escort carriers really ships of the RCN? They were Canadian manned (entirely?), but never commissioned into the force. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * All the content is covered by references - but not inline references. I will address this asap. Sortable tables is a great idea, but it will lengthen the article considerably (is that not a concern?). The question of what is or is not RCN even up to WWII is really dodgy and a matter of definition. Most historians and researchers seem to agree that a ship is RCN if it meets most, though not necessarily all of the following: commissioned, staffed by RCN personal, paid for by RCN, operated by RCN. There was a lot of horse trading between the RCN and RN. Some RN ships were given to Canada to use, run/staffed by Canadians and they are counted as RCN -this includes the carriers. Some RCN ships were loaned to the RN, but again staffed with Canadians, so they are considered RCN. Some RCN ships went to the RN, but are considered RN as they were run by the RN. Oddly, the RN "Navy List", which is one of the seminal secondary sources for RN ships, lists RCN and other commonwealth ships in its tallies. Sometimes the Navy List also attributed ships to the RCN, which even the RCN didn't consider theirs. "Ownership" was oft times not at all black and white. That cannot be "fixed" as there are so many gaps in the sources and different ways to look at the historical record. Robert Brukner (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The RCN is weird. Niobe commissioned into the RCN with an RN commander. Puncher and Nabob commissioned into the RN with RCN commanders. As for why Nabob and Puncher were not HMCS; due to the legalities of Lend-Lease. However, they were intended to become HMCS after the war, but Canada traded them for a Colossus class. As to whether they belong in the RCN page, they were commissioned with RCN commanders and crews and were for all intents and purposes, considered RCN ships. This had happened several times in the war when the UK ran out of people for basic crews. They did it with Flower-class corvettes, River-class frigates, and Town-class destroyers too, however the destroyers were not commissioned into the RCN due to Lend-lease legalities. As for linking commissioned ships, I know some of the vessels listed in this article would not pass the 100 tons, 100 feet rule. The MTBs, drifters and trawlers should just use a class page due to the sheer number of them and the inability to meet the size rules. Llammakey (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments (not a full review): G'day, thanks for your efforts with this. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Image review Oppose pending resolution of some of the above. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * in the lead, "fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic) contains the..." I suggest removing the bold face type here are rewording slightly, in this case I don't think you need to mention the name of the article title in the lead (see the guidance at WP:BEGIN). So perhaps something like this: "this article (or list, because I think it actually list rather than an article as such) covers surface warships, submarines and auxiliary vessels in service from 1910 up to the early 1990s".
 * "1990's": remove the apostrophe per WP:DECADE;
 * "1910–1922" --> "1910–22" per WP:DATERANGE;
 * "1922–1947" --> "1922–47" (as above);
 * "1948–1989" --> "1948–89" (as above);
 * in the Bibliography, "Royal Canadian Navy honours, decorations, medals, 1910–1968" --> "Royal Canadian Navy Honours, Decorations, Medals, 1910–1968" (title case capitalisation)
 * are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Dittmar, Douglas and Tucker works? They can usually be found ;
 * "The sea is at our gates: The History of the Canadian Navy" --> "The Sea is at Our Gates: The History of the Canadian Navy"
 * the References seem a bit inconsistent in their style. For instance compare "Schull, Joseph (1987) [1952]. Far Distant Ships: An Official Account of Canadian Naval Operations in World War II. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing. p. 7" v. "Macpherson and Barrie, p.18"
 * "STACEY" --> "Stacey"
 * this note should probably just appear in the main text (of the lead): "Ships in this list also include vessels with RCN crews, such as TR-series minesweepers of the First World War, and aircraft carriers of the Second World War".
 * inconsistent date formatting, for instance compare: "March 10, 2016" v. "2016-03-10" v. "2 May 2010" (please be consistent)
 * I suggest maybe renaming the two articles/lists: "List of active Royal Canadian Navy ships" and "List of decommissioned Royal Canadian Navy ships", or something similar.
 * G'day, Robert, not sure if you have seen my comments or not. Please let me know your thoughts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have seen them. Many thanks for your input. I appreciate it. I have received a lot of great input from 3 or 4 others. Before I make more changes to these articles I am giving it a few more days for any other comments. Robert Brukner (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Canadian_Blue_Ensign_1868-1921.svg should include licensing tag for the original design
 * File:Fisheries_Protection_vessel_Vigilant.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
 * File:HMCS_Aurora_Patriot_Patrician_Esquimalt_1921_E-6546-2.jpg: source link is dead, and when was this first published?
 * File:Icebreaker_CGS_Stanley,_escorting_two_vessels.jpg: given the unknowns, how do we know that the current licensing tag applies?
 * File:HMCS_Edmundston.jpg: the Naval Museum is not the author but the source - who is the actual author and what was the original creation/publication date?
 * File:Crew_HMCS_Daerwood.png: with the given information, assuming this was not published anywhere else, this would likely not be PD in the US
 * File:Royal_Canadian_Navy_minesweepers_Second_World_War.jpg: do you have a link to support the current licensing? Same with File:Canadian_infantry_landing,_Normandy,_1944.jpg, File:Sickbay_on_HMCS_Provider.jpg, File:RCN_Harbour_craft_Zoarces.jpg, File:RCN_Harbour_craft_Captor.jpg, File:RCN_Harbour_craft_79_(Miss_Kelvin).jpg
 * File:U889_surrender_a171391-v6.jpg: Canadian copyright would have expired, but what about US?
 * File:MTB-460_MIKAN_4821109.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US? Same with File:HMCS_Cougar_(Z15).jpg
 * Did a quick tidy of the references and a ce, which took in some of the suggestions here. I'd rather keep 1914–1918 date ranges though.Keith-264 (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

'''Comment:" Unless I am missing something, it seems this is really just a listing of ships of the Canadian Navy that fall into some specific timelines. If this is so, should this not be called List of...? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. However its a former part of an article under the name "Fleet...". So I decided to leave it for now. Until I receive further inputs. Then I will change everything all at once, and in line with all the comments I receive. thanks for your input. Send along any ideas you have. I'll be thoroughly editing the article within the week. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Robert, are you in a position to make the changes requested? If not, I will request an uninvolved co-ord close the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am. I am also determined to wait a full 14 days after the very last comment to start making additional edits, to avoid all the breathless and tragically "excluded" editors rushing in claiming they were not consulted. The last comment was received April 13. So I intend to wait to April 27. I hope you don't mind. Robert Brukner (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion, but I believe reviewers usually want to see a nominator engaging with them in a relatively timely fashion, otherwise they are less likely to remain engaged with the review themselves (i.e. they either forget about it or walk away from it), which usually results in a "no consensus to promote" closure. Doesn't always pan out that way, of course, but there was a time when most ACRs were closed after 28 days total, with some being closed as early as five days. Now we tend to leave them open longer out of necessity, but I'm not really sure that this is of benefit to the ACR process as a whole. The other issue that you may face with your approach is that reviewers do not always highlight all issues in a single review, either deliberately (because they want to see how you get on before investing more time to review the article fully), or because they are human and miss some things that a later reviewer may pick up. Reviewers also build on the work of those before them. Hence, if you deal with the first reviewer's comments quickly, it allows subsequent reviewers to focus on different things rather than seeing the exact same issues and only highlighting those same points (hence you get a more robust review). Anyway, that's it from me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.