Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Bulwark (1899)

Article promoted by Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

&laquo; Return to A-Class review list

HMS Bulwark (1899)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

Bulwark initially served as flagship of the Mediterranean Fleet from 1902 to 1905 and then spent the rest of her career in home waters as part of the Channel and Home Fleets. The ship was reduced to reserve in 1910–1914, but was reactivated as tensions rose during the July Crisis of 1914. After the war began, she was assigned to the Channel Fleet to protect the British Expeditionary Force from any interference from by the Imperial German Navy. Bulwark was destroyed in an accidental magazine explosion in November; almost all of those aboard were killed. As this is bound for FAC, I'd like reviewers to look for any stray AmEng, unlinked or unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Parsecboy
First! In the interest of full disclosure, material I wrote for other articles was copied into this one here (but not by me) - dunno if anyone thinks I ought to recuse based on that, but I'll leave that up to the closing coord.
 * One dupe link
 * I spy a "defense"
 * "bridge (nautical)|"
 * One thing I've tried to do in articles I write is, where possible, to keep years in individual paragraphs to (hopefully) make the narrative easier to follow - I'd kick the line that starts "On 19 January 1907..." into the next paragraph.
 * I would also split the following paragraph, merging the command change info up and then combining the rest with the first para of the 1909-1914 section - actually, just take a look here for how I'd organize it.
 * Seems reasonable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I might put the Explosion section under the FWW header
 * G'day are you going to do a full review here, or should I treat this as a drive-past due to your contributions to the content? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I could do a full review if other coords think it's above board - do you have any thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, I reckon it's ok. You didn't copy it across yourself, so it's not a direct contribution to this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems fair to me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources
 * My understanding is that wrecksite is user generated and therefore not acceptable as a RS. Parsecboy (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that. I always see the same couple of names filling out the history and description sections, so I figured that it was curated by them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's apparently only come up once at RSN (see here) - not a lengthy discussion by any means, but it seems the answer is no. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * References are uniformly formatted
 * Apart from the wrecksite question, sources are high quality and reliable and what one would expect for a ship of the period. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from PM
This article is in great shape. I have a few comments: That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * in the lead, suggest "as it moved through across the English Channel"
 * I thought Moses was on the side of the British during that war! ;-)
 * there is a lot of repetition of "explosion" in a couple of sentences in the lead, perhaps vary the wording a bit? Use "it", for example?
 * See how it reads now.
 * you could trim 131.60 m
 * the full/deep load displacement conversion doesn't match between the body and infobox
 * What's 40 tons between friends?
 * perhaps mention that the secondary battery were in single mounts, not sure if casemates make that redundant?
 * I'm not aware of any twin-gun casemates, only double-tier ones where two separate casemates were stacked atop each other as on the Monmouth-class armoured cruisers.
 * were the 12-pounders in the superstructure provided with gunshields or were they unprotected?
 * Not stated in the sources; photographic evidence suggests unshielded.
 * the TT conversions don't match between the infobox and body
 * the main gun turret armour isn't consistent between the body and infobox, perhaps the range should be included in the latter?
 * perhaps mention it was the nth ship of this name in British service?
 * link ship commissioning at first mention
 * "She left Plymouth on five days later"
 * "sometimes served as an observers"
 * "to rendezvous with the Channel and Atlantic Fleets to for manoeuvres that lasted the rest of the month"
 * link Chatham Dockyard at first mention
 * Sigh, no matter how much I review these things, more than a few things always escape my notice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem with my work, familiarity with the subject means you miss little things. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:HMS_Bulwark_(1899).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert
Support: G'day, Sturm, this looks pretty good to me. I have a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * guns guns: repetition
 * bulkheads on the aft end of the belt was...: "bulkheads...were"?
 * and the casemate guns was protected...: "guns were"?
 * And that at least 30 exposed...: probably best not to start a sentence with "and"
 * had been left in the some of the...: "had been left in some of the"
 * used to stowed hundreds: "used to stow hundreds"
 * the Chaplain of the Fleet.[43] and unveiled by...: perhaps replace the full stop with a comma
 * in the infobox, I suggest maybe adding a date or year to the image caption
 * in the citations some of the website names are in italics and some aren't. For instance compare citation 33 with citation 46
 * there are no dup links or dab links (no action required)
 * the infobox says the ship was commissioned on 11 March, but the body says 18 March
 * Good catch
 * Sources: references all appear to be to reliable sources
 * See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, Sturm, they look good to me. Added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)