Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Indefatigable (1909)


 * 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.

Promoted EyeSerene talk 11:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Indefatigable (1909)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I've further cleaned up the article and I'm trying to get it ready for a FAC for OMT.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments just a few to get the review started (sorry, I will come back later and do a more thorough review):
 * there are no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
 * images should be okay for A class, but for FAC you might want to consider whether the "life of author + 70 years" licence is appropriate on the sketch from Brassey's (it says author not identified, so we can’t reasonably make a judgement of when he/she died, thus making it not possible to determine when it would be PD);
 * Copyright is OK since it was published in 1923. Individual artist is irrelevant since it was a work for hire and Brassey's owns the copyright, which has expired.
 * Understood, however, what I'm saying is that its licence is relying upon the death of an author that it states is "not identified" (thus it is not possible to determine that they died 70 years ago). Is there a licence that could be added that relies on the fact of its publication prior to 1923 (e.g. maybe ), rather than  which relies on the death of its author when said author is not identified? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I understand. I've swapped out the image for one from the 1915 Brassey's which has no copyright issues at all. The original image used that odd, and inappropriate, license because the image was actually still in copyright as it was a work for hire and it wasn't published _before_ 1923, but rather in 1923.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me now. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * alt text could be added to the images (this is a suggestion, not a requirement);
 * can publisher information be added to citation # 8 ("British 12 pdr")?
 * Certainly.
 * all of the ISBNs in the References section have hyphens except one, could you add these in, or remove the others for consistency (this is not a major drama if you can't);
 * Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * in the second paragraph of the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau section there is a quotation mark sitting out of place (I think), after this sentence "...clear orders to "chase Goeben" which had passed Cape Matapan on the 7th steering north-east." Milne..." (the problem is the quotation mark before Milne). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph of the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau section, should "Goeben" be in italics in this sentence: "...he set sail for Cape Matapan, where Goeben had been spotted...";
 * Another good catch.
 * In the second paragraph (same as above) I suggest breaking up this sentence: "At 2:30 p.m. he received an incorrect signal from the Admiralty stating that Britain was at war with Austria-Hungary, war would not be declared until 12 August, and the order was countermanded four hours later, but Milne followed his standing orders to guard the Adriatic against an Austrian breakout attempt, rather than hunt for Goeben". I suggest adding a full stop after "at war with Austria-Hungary" and then starting a new sentence with: "War would not be declared, however, until...";
 * Good idea.
 * In the last paragraph (beginning On 3 November 1914) the contraction "didn't" should probably be changed to "did not" to make it sound more encyclopedic (...by Britain agaisnt the Ottoman Empire which didn't...);
 * Fixed
 * There is another instance of the use of the word "didn't" in the first paragraph of the Battle of Jutland section ("...but Beatty's ships didn't spot...");
 * Fixed
 * In the Battle of Jutland section you could link the word "astern" to the Glossary of nautical terms as some readers might not know what it means (same with amidships, etc.);
 * Always a hard call to judge how much vocabulary readers know.
 * In the Battle of Jutland section some of your times do not state whether it is am or pm;
 * Only the first time is given am or pm; any change would be noted.
 * No dramas, just wanted to clarify if it was deliberate or an oversight. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In this sentence you use the word "while" twice in close proximity, "...aimed at Von der Tann while New Zealand targeted at Moltke while remaining unengaged herself" (perhaps it could be reworded slighty?);
 * Done
 * In the final sentence of the Battle of Jutland section, you have "Von der Tann only fired 52 28 cm...". In this case it might be clearer for the reader's understanding (I did a double take when reading it) to spell out 52 as "fifty-two" because of the 28 cm beside it (the MOS does allow this, I believe). AustralianRupert (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the MOS values consistency over readability, but done regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support


 * Initial look at the article shows me that the lede could be a tad longer, although that's not major
 * Broken out into two paras.
 * The lede and inital section contains a lot of naval jargon that is almost impenetrable to me. To take the lede, what was Invincible, and who built it? And what's significant of it being enlarged for those turrets? When was she commissioned, and what did she do before the war began? The lede reads like it was written purely for OMT and naval readers, and really isn't reader-friendly for anyone else.
 * Rephrased the lead to reference the Invincible-class BCs. How is the significance of the extra length not explained? I don't understand what the issue is. She was commissioned before WWI and she did nothing of significance before the start of the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think her commissioning date should be in the lede, but fair enough on the rest of the comment. Skinny87 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to the lede that provides her dates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Needs a lot more background in the 'Description'. I know very little of the intricacies of pre-WWI British naval development, and giving me the statement 'Indefatigable was ordered as the lone battlecruiser of the 1908–9 programme' just makes me more confused. What programme? What was the impetus behind it being built? Who ordered it - I assume the British government? Skinny87 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All that is addressed in the class article and Royal Navy is linked already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a reader shouldn't have to go to another article to understand the background to this article. It needn't be much, just a paragraph, or even a couple of sentences. But at the moment a reader unfamiliar with the subject is effectively being thrown into the deepend with no context as to why the vessel was built. Skinny87 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm uncertain how to respond to this. The simple truth was that Jackie Fisher wanted more battlecruisers and one was all he could push past the Government of the day. There was no system of Staff Requirements, etc., back then; the Lords of the Admiralty simply decided what they wanted and negotiated with the Government to see what they'd accept.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to seem stubborn about this, but surely something can be said. What about background to the Naval Plan, or details on exactly what you just said about Fisher? I mean, it shouldn't be make-work for the sake of writing something, but at the moment there really is no context or explanation of why it was built. Skinny87 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of sentences on the political situation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks great, now supporting. Skinny87 (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments
 * I can't tell whether this is saying she had no more armor or a little more armor: "Essentially this was a slightly enlarged Invincible with a revised protection arrangement, a larger design with more armour and better underwater protection having been rejected for reasons of cost." - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the comma to a semi-colon to better separate the two events.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'd prefer a red or blue link on BVIII*. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not prepared to start writing articles, even stubs, on the various marks of British turrets. The implications of the exact turret type are buried in discussed in the class article where all that stuff dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sounds better, 'X' barbette or barbette 'X'? - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 'X' barbette is normally how they're referred to in the literature. Same with turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Low-order explosive" seems to be an overloaded term; I'm finding meanings of low explosive, "propellant", and low order-of-magnitude around the web ... a link or explanation would be nice. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added Deflagration as a synonym for low-order explosion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that a 9-foot rangefinder is 9 feet long? Are they generally characterized by length, by model or by maximum range? - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Length is the most important characteristic, followed by type or model, as more length usually means better resolution and range.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's going to be immediately obvious to our readers what "half-sister" (ship) means; rather than defining the term (since it's not used much), it would probably be better just to write out what you mean. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think that half-sister, with a link to sister ship added, quite elegantly describes the relationship between the ships in that they're closely related, but not identical.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I avoid image issues like the plague that they are, but you've got one photograph where you can barely see the ship, and one sketch. I think people might grumble at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though we've used it before, I don't think File:Jutland1916.jpg would be out of place. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, but I'm not impressed with the results. Looks rather overcrowded to my eyes. What do y'all think? Not willing to dump the photo of her sinking despite its low quality. I could add pictures of her opponents like Goeben or of her weapons mounted on other ships if you'd prefer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm crap on image issues. Let's do whatever you guys think will get through FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "blew up at about 4:03 when her magazines exploded": Does Tarrant give us a little more? I'm looking for something like "her magazines exploded and a conflagration swept the ship" or "the ship buckled" or "the ship was torn apart".  "blew up" is a little informal and also doesn't really tell me what happened. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a rather sensationalistic sentence describing what she looked like exploding.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I want in on the movie rights. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another solid job, and I can support per the usual disclaimer when these issues are tackled. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now Supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments.
 * No mention of the armoured spotting and signal tower behind the conning tower, unique to Indefatigable. (Brooks. Mast and Funnel Question.  p. 43.)
 * There's a brief mention in Roberts, but he doesn't say much other than it was generally inferior to the later installations in terms of visibility, protection and access to the captain/admiral. Since I don't have that article, nor am I going to be able to get the article shortly, feel free to add a little bit about that to the article. Alternatively, I'd happily take a scan and write it up myself.
 * No mention of the fact that at Jutland the captain (C. F. Sowerby) survived but wasn't saved. (Campbell.  p. 61.) --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My copy of Campbell is in storage, can you elaborate on why he wasn't rescued? Did he refuse rescue?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked it up and added the relevant info. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 9 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.