Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Tiger (1913)


 * 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: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

HMS Tiger (1913)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Overall a solid article, even though I don't know much about ships of the period and get lost in naval battle descriptions, I was able to follow the text without problem. I've made a few minor tweaks myself, mostly link additions, and will support after a few minor concerns are addressed: Constantine  ✍  11:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "the only design influence on Tiger that can be attributed to the Japanese ship"I am a bit puzzled as to the purpose of this clarifier. Why anyone would think that there might be more design features attributed to Kongo?
 * Older scholarship said that the Kongo design heavily influenced that of Lion. Should I expand this bit to clarify things?
 * I think you should. The comment presupposes knowledge that the average reader won't have. Constantine  ✍  14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Like the rest of the battlecruisers, Tiger's own gunnery was rapid, but inaccurate" I suppose this means that all battlecruisers fired rapidly, but Tiger's was inaccurate? This ought to be rephrased then, because at first glance it reads that all battlecruisers' fire was "rapid, but inaccurate".
 * That's correct; the shooting by all of the battlecruisers was rapid and inaccurate.
 * OK, question then: If it was a fleet-wide problem, why was the ship with the least combat readiness the target of such criticism? It is because of this that I thought that the sentence might be wrong. Constantine  ✍  14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not clear, but it was probably because she was the newest, most powerful battlecruiser and people expected more from her. But I can't confirm that to explain why the ship's performance was so heavily criticised in contrast to every other ship. Although I suspect that criticism of the other ships, which Beatty had commanded for longer, would be taken as an implicit criticism of Beatty himself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. All right, if your sources don't mention any details, I'm happy to leave it at that. Constantine  ✍  21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "commented upon by the senior leadership of the Royal Navy:" is there something missing here or is it meant to link to the next paragraph beginning with "Lord Fisher was moved to write.."?
 * Yes, it was supposed to link. I've combined the two paragraphs to clarify that.Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Check on that. Constantine  ✍  14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It just means that it's OK now ;) Constantine  ✍  21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel, I'd like to support, but please take care of the Kongo issue. While relatively minor, it is a loose end. Constantine  ✍  20:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about that, an explanatory note added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My concerns are addressed, so I too Support.Constantine  ✍  21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at HMS_Tiger_(1913). These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Continuing. "bunkerage": link.
 * Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "compares": I went with "compared". Present tense can be useful in specific contexts in which the reader is experiencing a narrative as if it's actually happening.
 * "Mark II***": I don't know what the three asterisks mean.
 * Elucidated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "a 9-foot (2.7 m) rangefinders": I guessed you meant this to be plural, and removed the "a".
 * "Data ... were": Observations were, or "Data was" (usually, nowadays). I went with "Data was", and split the long sentence.
 * Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lion class ships": Lion-class ships.
 * This time, I made it down to HMS_Tiger_(1913). - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * The "11th HMS Tiger" bit is confusing, I think, to non-specialists. If you want to include the fact that she was the 11th Tiger, you might say "HMS Tiger, the eleventh ship to bear that name..."
 * Good idea.
 * I'm no expert on Br.Eng., but should "minimized" be "minimised"?
 * Indeed.
 * File:SMS Moltke.jpg is no good - File:SMS Moltke LOC hec 01144.jpg might be a good replacement.
 * Agreed.
 * Out of curiosity, how does File:HMS Tiger in drydock WWI NAC PA-007106.jpg qualify as a Canadian photo?
 * Look at the license, it's from the Canadian archives.
 * I saw that. Mainly, I was wondering how a photo of a British ship in Britain qualifies as Canadian (or more directly, is this simply a copy of the photo that's held in the Canadian archive?). Also, the link is dead and needs to be fixed before you get to FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose that a RCN photographer happened to be at the dockyard that day, but that's about my best guess. Photos at the Canadian DOD are nearly impossible to hunt down, very aggravating as I now remember from my Canadian destroyer articles. Deleted since it's going to FAC shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "deployment of four battlecruisers to hunt for the German East Asia Squadron" - as far as I'm aware, the British only detached the two to hunt down von Spee - what other BCs were deployed?
 * Good catch, it's actually 3. Princess Royal went to the Caribbean in case they used the Panama Canal.
 * The characterization of the post-Jutland service (specifically attributing the lack of action to the Germans) is a bit simplistic, IMO. Jellicoe issued orders in late 1916 that the fleet was not to go south of the Horns Reef line unless the Germans were in the Thames, or something equally dramatic. And Beatty was perhaps even more cautious once he took over. The myth that "the Germans won't come out, but we're raring to go" needs to be put to bed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Images: Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * File:HMS Tiger (1913).jpg - No author identified, so life+70 isn't sufficient for the UK part. No US licence tag provided.
 * Source link is broken as well; this one's hosed and replaced.
 * File:HMS Tiger diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg - the same problem, but it's not clear if Brassey's is a US or British thing (sorry, I don't have time to look that up myself). If British, then PD-1923 would only wash on en.wiki, not Commons, but at least we could keep the image :)
 * Brassey's is both UK and US, IIRC, but we should still get one that's before '23. There's no drawing in the 1915 Brassey's so I've deleted the image. Have I said how much I hate all this image shit?
 * File:HMS Tiger (1913) secondary battery.jpg - dependent on File:HMS Tiger (1913).jpg
 * Deleted.
 * File:HMS Tiger in drydock WWI NAC PA-007106.jpg needs a PD-1923 tag.
 * Done.
 * File:SMS Moltke.jpg - no date or author given to assess life+70, no US tag.
 * Replaced.
 * File:HMS Tiger Jutland damage diagrams.jpg - needs either a British tag or some indication it was published in America (currently says "Published by MacMillan, London, 1921." but MacMillan may have published in New York also)
 * Fixed this one.
 * There are a couple of relatively decent photos on the IWM website that I can't get to download. Has anyone tried to do so recently? I may just dig out my scanner and add some higher quality photos from books credited to the IWM. BTW, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Battle of Dogger Bank: "He caught up to them shortly before Blücher sank and boarded Princess Royal at 12:20." -- so... did they sink or board the ship?
 * I don't understand your question? Blücher's sinking is only mentioned to show how long Beatty was out of touch in his pursuit of his squadrons.
 * As-is, it sounds like they sank the ship and then boarded it after it was underwater, which is confusing. — Ed! (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Blücher sank and Princess Royal was boarded, how can a reader be confused?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! I just figured it out. I got confused and thought it was all one clause, and that it was saying that Blucher caused Princess Royal to sink, and then boarded it, instead of that Princess Royal's boarding action occurred after Blucher's sinking. I suppose if that hasn't tripped anyone else up, it's fine. — Ed! (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The caption of File:SMS Moltke.jpg should note the year the photo was taken.
 * Done for the new photo.
 * Battle of Dogger Bank: "Tiger's own gunnery was rapid, but inaccurate, and she achieved only two hits out of 355 13.5-inch (340 mm) shells fired." -- Sorry, did it clarify which ship(s) these two shells hit?
 * Done.
 * "The ship was given a refit in December 1915." -- It might help to clarify which weapons or armor were swapped out in this refit.
 * None, sometimes they're more focused on extraordinary maintenance.
 * Battle of Jutland: "This began what was to be called the "Run to the South" " -- passive voice
 * How does it read now?
 * Post War Service: "She was the last of the Royal Navy's coal-burning capital ships." -- The last to be constructed or the last to be in service? Also it might be good to explain what replaced the coal-burning ships.
 * It's a bit more complicated that the source indicated, so I've dumped it.
 * In references but not used: Campbell 2000, Gardiner 1984, Hayward 1977, Holloway 2006.
 * Moved.
 * Note 4 needs a year on the Roberts reference.
 * Will check back soon. — Ed! (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Support all of my comments have been addressed. — Ed! (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, what note are you referring to?
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "While no sources explicitly state that Tiger was part of the fleet at this time, of the seven Royal Navy battlecruisers then in commission, Indomitable was under refit through August and the only one unavailable for action. See Roberts, p. 122" (in Post-Jutland service) It's unclear which Roberts reference this note is sourced to. — Ed! (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaah, my mistake. Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * One external link reports as dead :
 * dreadnoughtproject.org
 * Fixed.
 * Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals two errors with reference consolidation:
 * Where is this tool, because nothing's jumping out at me as needing consolidation.
 * Images are all public domain and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
 * The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations (no action required).
 * Was the abbreviation "1st BCS" a contemporary abbreviation or is it used here as an expediency? I wonder if we should use abbreviations if they weren't/aren't in common usage? No idea on the wikipolicy on this. Just a thought. (I won't oppose on the basis of this of cse).
 * I believe that it's contemporary.
 * Some inconsistency in terms: "1st Battlecruiser Squadron" and "First Battlecruiser Squadron".
 * Fixed
 * "and Captain Pelly was described as a "poltroon"", should just be "and Pelly was described..." removing rank following formal introduction at first use per WP:SURNAME.
 * Fixed
 * Repeated linking of waterline and dynamos.
 * Fixed.
 * Repeatition here: "She survived the culling of older capital ships following the Washington Naval Treaty, although she was placed in reserve on 22 August 1921." Specifically "she" twice in the same sentence.
 * Fixed
 * The post war section seems a bit out chronollogically. Specifically it jumps from 1921 back to 1919 here: "She survived the culling of older capital ships following the Washington Naval Treaty, although she was placed in reserve on 22 August 1921.[32] In 1919 a flying-off platform was added on 'B' turret's roof." Anotherclown (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How does it read now? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those changes looks fine. Adding my support now. BTW the citation check tool can be accessed by clicking the "edit" button at the top of the page, then "cite", the "error check". Anotherclown (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I never noticed that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.