The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [1].

---

HMS Indefatigable (1909)[edit]

HMS Indefatigable (1909) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Dank, Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time through for this article. It was archived last time for lack of support, although all of the other comments had been dealt with. This has passed a MilHist ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Indefatigable (1909) and is a co-nomination between myself and Dank--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 01:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments 2c: looks good. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Images All images are PD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • It may be worth noting that the line-drawing is actually for the Invincible class, and that Brassey's made a mistake.
    • It's labeled for both classes and is close enough since the layout was generally the same for both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Pursuit of Goeben section, it would be more clear to specify what types of ships Goeben and Breslau are - you mention "all three battlecruisers" but you don't ever state that Goeben was a BC but Breslau was just a light cruiser.
    • Is "cruisers" or "ships" better? - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that it's not clear what we're talking about with regard to the "all three battlecruisers" line. We know it refers to Goeben, but there's nothing in the section identifying Goeben as a battlecruiser. Parsecboy (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
  • Did the ship sortie as part of the response to the Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft?
    • Probably, but I don't have anything specifically listing any of Beatty's ships then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotta love it when the sources are insufficient to answer a relatively simple question like that, right? Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jutland images are sandwiching the text something awful, any way to fix that? Maybe split the bottom paragraph and move the photo down?
    • How does it look now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better now, though I imagine you'll soon have someone complain about it spilling over into the next subsection. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thing: between February 1915 and April 1916, I assume the ship was just conducting routine patrols in the North Sea. Could you make that clear in the article? I know there weren't any major operations, as the Germans largely remained in port under the cautious von Pohl, but I assume Beatty was still out patrolling. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • All my concerns have been addressed, so moving to Support. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Read the article from beginning to end and found no glaring issues to report prose-wise. Seems well-written and sourced. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Lead - second para says "returned in February to the United Kingdom". I think "returned to the United Kingdom in February" would be better syntax. Third para says an explosion hurtled parts of the ship. Parts of the ship might hurtle, but an explosion would hurl things. The article looks very interesting. Dolphin (t) 10:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't find support in style guides or dictionaries for what you're saying, but I'm not familiar with BritEng style guides ... can you find it? I swapped in "hurl", but I can't make the other change ... "in February where" doesn't work. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change to refine the syntax. My version: "returned to the UK in February" matches "defending the Dardanelles on 3 November 1914" earlier in the same sentence. Dolphin (t) 22:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have read the complete article and made all the refinements I consider will improve it. It is now ready for FA status. Dolphin (t) 02:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - is there any way to turn up the contrast on File:Invincible&IndefatigableSketch.jpg? It's rather hard to view.
  • Note 1: 20 [in the text] or 30 [in the note] cwt?
    • Good catch, damn computer is supposed to know that what I meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "blended into the haze." -- what haze? You didn't mention it before.
    • It was wasn't a factor earlier, and may not have been present at all.
  • Any reason why "protected place" is in italics? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I can tell; deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "No battlecruisers were ordered after the three Invincible-class ships until Indefatigable became the lone battlecruiser of the 1908–09 Naval Programme." This sentence confuses me - No battlecruisers were ordered... until they were ordered?
    • No BCs were ordered between two particular times; makes sense to me. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Seems to be an overuse of commas? Some run on sentences would be better split up e.g.
  • "A new Liberal Government had taken power in January 1906 and demanded reductions in naval spending, and the Admiralty submitted a reduced programme, requesting dreadnoughts but no battlecruisers."
    • Nope. "and" here is called a "paratactic" construction, and it deals with objections that have been raised at FAC in the past when we try to use two sentences, as you're suggesting ("What's the connection between the two sentences?") or a "therefore" ("How does the first sentence imply the second?"). - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Indefatigable, accompanied by the battlecruiser Indomitable and under the command of Admiral Sir Berkeley Milne, encountered the German battlecruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau on the morning of 4 August 1914, which were headed east after a cursory bombardment of the French Algerian port of Philippeville."
    • It would be longer as two sentences, so some say it should be one. I've got some sympathy with your position. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The Germans sortied from Messina on 6 August and headed east, toward Constantinople, trailed by Gloucester." I don't think there's a grammatical rationale for the comma after east. Just a couple of examples but the whole article needs checked.
    • There is in AmEng. "east towards Constantinople" means the same thing as "towards Constantinople", with some added information. "east, towards Constantinople" means "east", with some added information. Which is more accurate, I don't know. I plead ignorance on BritEng. - Dank (push to talk)
  • What was the "1908–09 Naval Programme"? - I'm not saying the article definitely needs a short summary of it, I'm just saying personally I wondered what this is about.
    • Sturm? - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's how they handled their budgeting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking? Some low value links such as astern, knots, km/h & mph. Also does one speed need two conversions? 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) This is six extraneous links when you count the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau & Battle of Jutland sections.
    • If you're saying we shouldn't link at first occurrence, there's more support than not for that. If we're linking the same terms or abbreviations twice, that's different. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I searched "knots"; it's currently linked twice in the text. Personally, I link any term in the text just once, but I don't fail articles in A-class reviews for linking twice, and I'd get bonked on the head if I did. Sturm, your call on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Considering the infobox and the main body separately, my policy is to link once and convert each individual measurement on first occasion. I'll delete any excess links. And, yes, the triple conversion is absolutely necessary as most people have no idea how knots and mph are related.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also link first instance - speed links above these examples not linked.
    • Sorry? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Is "half-sister" a recognised term? i.e. does a sister ship become a half-sister in a different navy?
    • I've asked the same myself. Sturm's position is that the term is used often enough in high-quality sources that we do a service to the reader to use the term. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I'm not sure I understand your question. Does one of a class of ships in service with a different navy mean that it's no longer a sister, but a half-sister? If that's what you meant, then the answer is that it has nothing to do with what navy a ship belonged to, but only refers to differences between them. A half-sister has less in common than a "full sister".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 3 November 1914, Churchill ordered" - Churchill is just linked with no explanation of his job (First Lord of the Admiralty). I would be very surprised if any reader didn't know who Churchill was, however few will know his full career history.
    • I don't think there's support for omitting a link to a notable person. Feel free to add ", then First Lord of the Admiralty," if you like ... it wouldn't hurt, but I can see Sturm's logic, too; we don't pause in the middle of the narrative to explain the current rank and function of everyone involved. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Is "recoal" a word? Refuel would be better perhaps?
    • I can see Sturm's point, but "refuel" is fine with me, I'll make the edit. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Perhaps I should have put re-coal instead, but it's a perfectly good word, albeit much out use these days, with most everything oil powered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Hipper? No explanation given in the five times he's mentioned. A quick Google search tells me he was a German Admiral, however a FA shouldn't require the reader to revert to a search engine to explain important points.
    • I'll add the link in a sec. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The article seems to have gone for 12 hour clock format. Personally I prefer 24 hour, especially for a military subject. However for 12 hour make sure every time has an a.m. or p.m. - in some instances this isn't the case.
    • Nope, we usually get reverted if we say "at 8 a.m. blah, at 8:30 a.m. blah, at 8:45 a.m. blah". It's clear enough what's meant by 8:30 and 8:45 in such a context. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Red link (SMS S68). Mark83 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no firm requirement to avoid red links. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not clutter up the page with response to everything, most don't need it. Just a few things:

• The first point - no BCs ordered between two times. Yes but the article raises the gap so the article should quantify it. Was it 2 years? 5? 10?

• I'll add it.

• My point about "link first instance" which got the "sorry?" reply - MOS says link first instance of a word, not latter instances. Knots was linked on its second occurrence.

• Quite right, but I've cleaned out the extraneous links.
• And I added link to first occurrence of "knots". - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Churchill link - Of course I wasn't suggesting omitting a link, my point was that in this case a job title would be beneficial to the reader's understanding of events.

• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Recoal. Yes coal is a verb but surely then re-coal is correct?

• I've changed it to re-coal.

• SMS S68 - I was under the mistaken impression that they were frowned upon for FAs. Apologies. Mark83 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to worry, thanks for taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks from me too. - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Any minor quibbles I had have been dealt with. Mark83 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concerns:

• File:Invincible&IndefatigableSketch.jpg

  Brassey's Naval Annual is a UK publication. Where is the tag that justifies it is public domain in the UK? Were "reasonable [enquiries]" made to ascertain the identity of the artist? Which page was it printed in Brassey's Naval Annual (1915)? Move it to Wikipedia with ((PD-1923-abroad)) after obtaining the page number.

  • Here's my response from the first FAC that you may not have seen: See [2]. Which references [3] which states that commissioned or freelance work belongs to the artist unless otherwise agreed and that work done as a condition for employment belongs to the employer. So, without an attribution, I'm inclined to think that this is out of copyright in the UK as it was likely done by a staff artist. And here's a link to the title page: [4]. Brassey's makes no exception to copyright for any artists. And the drawing in question, about p. 227, does not list an artist or show any copyright by said artist as it would have to do if the artist retained his copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elcobbola had not stricken his concern in the previous FAC, and coincidentally, I had consulted him over a similar issue now at User talk:Elcobbola/Archive12#Work for hire - UK. The point, however, is that was a reasonable inquiry made to the owner of Brassey's (which is still in publication) to ascertain the identity of this unnamed artists? If it was a freelancer or commissioned artist, then there is still the possibility of copyright protection. Moving this image to Wikipedia avoids all this concern. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Brassey's did identify the artist: S. W. Barnaby. Unfortunately, there is no information on Barnaby's life. I have boldly replaced the image in this article with File:Brassey's Invicible-Indefatigable Plan (1915).jpg, the local copy on Wikipedia and consider this issue resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wasn't Barnaby a naval architect? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's Nathaniel, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg

  Why would "Photographer not identified" qualify this as a PD-UKGov work? IWM is like the US Library of Congress, collecting various works from all sources to preserve for properity. Their hosting of an image does not necessarily mean it was by a UK government employee.

  • Here's the link to the page on the IWM website discussing (very briefly) the collection: [5] I've added the photographer to the license; he was in the RN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • It states "DAY H T (LT CMDR) COLLECTION", basically stating that the photograph comes from the collection donated by Lieutenant Commander Day. It does not really identify Day as the photographer; rather Day donated the item in his possession. That said, might I suggest using File:Indefatigable Blowing Up.jpg instead? It is verifiably in the US public domain (by virtue of pre-1923 publication). As a side note, in the book that the suggested replacement was found, File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg is rendered as a pen-and-ink sketch (p. 17) rather than the use of the photograph itself; a method that hints of avoiding copyright claims. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Swapped.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the two above, the other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang, I curious about your objection to the second image. It was taken aboard a Royal Navy vessel during the battle; I don't think the RN ever allowed "embedded journalists" (or anyone else) on their ships during the war. Which pretty much just leaves RN personnel as the only option for the author. How does not knowing the author's name prevent it from being a work of the British government? Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To perhaps illustrate my point more clearly, I think it would be the same as preventing File:SBDs_and_Mikuma.jpg from being used in an FA because the author is unknown. Thus it cannot be proved with 100% certainty that a member of the USN snapped the photo. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Parsecboy#Re: File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.