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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:44, 28 September 2010 [1].

---

HMS Princess Royal (1911)[edit]

HMS Princess Royal (1911) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not promoted previously for certain unspecified prose issues. Subsequently it's been copyedited by several very helpful people in preparation for this resubmission and, I believe, fully meets the requirements of a FA-class article. If not I expect that any issues will be identified so that they can be corrected. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2c everything looks good except: Bibliography: Stevens, David; Goldrick, James (2010). Chapter in book by same authors? Cite book. ; Bibliography: Newbolt, Henry. No year given. Presses for works are good for 1c quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, two authors for one chapter. No year of publication is given in the reprint of the Newbolt book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's no year given for the reprint, then use the original publication date as the work publication date. If authors of a chapter are the same authors as the authors of the book, then it is usual to just cite the book; the page numbers ought to give the specific location within the work. Nice work on the books in series or multiple volumes! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Worldcat had a publication date even though my copy doesn't; I went with that as I'm not sure if changes were made in pagination, etc. Deleted the chapter title on the other book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (?####) should cover the year issue then? Newbolt seems to have a year now (1996)? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's the year given in Worldcat, yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: File:HMS Princess Royal LOC 18244u.jpg is claimed to be PD because it was published before 1923, but does not have a publication date or citation. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Library of Congress picture so it is PD in the US by definition. It uses a PD-US license, not PD-old, and makes no claim about being published before 1923, only that it may have been.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, right. If it's not public domain because it was published before 1923, why is that tag being used? Why not just stick with the other? J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read it more carefully. It doesn't say that it was published before 1923, but merely that it's out of copyright, often, but not necessarily, because it was published before 1923.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be careful before assuming that a Library of Congress tag means that everything is done and dusted. The tag specifically says that it does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. Moreover, The Bain Collection tag only says that there are "no known restrictions on the work's use", which is not the same as confirmation of PD. I mention this because I have had previous problems with Bain Collection works. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but how was it resolved? As far as I can figure the photographs were work-for-hire for the Bain News Agency and the LOC holds the copyright, which effectively means that they're PD since no US government entity can have copyright. So what holes are there in this argument?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the image. I'm not saying that was the only solution, or that you should do the same, just that you should be wary. Anyway, I have asked User:Elcobbola, who has grear knowledge of these matters, to advise on the matter. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several misconceptions. "It's a Library of Congress picture so it is PD in the US by definition" is entirely incorrect. The LoC hosts works still under copyright. [2] "No US government entity can have copyright" is also entirely incorrect ("the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." USC 17 § 105) The statement of "No known restrictions on publication", however, has routinely been determined to be equivalent to "public domain". I agree that the "known" is frustratingly and problematically imprecise, but consensus has been -- right or wrong -- that it is sufficient. It may be helpful to note that a portion of the Bain Collection has been entered into the Flickr Commons, which offers some elaboration of the "no known restrictions" verbiage. The reason, of course, that the LoC uses this guarded verbiage is prudence; only a court may authoritatively opine on the validity/absence of a copyright. Эlcobbola _talk 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a possible alternative, there's an image of the Princess Royal facing page 230 in Young, Filson (1921). With the Battle Cruisers London: Cassell and Company, LTD (available on Google books). That is verifiably published before 1.1.1923 (but only upload to en.wiki if you use it, as it may not be PD in the UK). Эlcobbola _talk 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, thanks for these very helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my thanks for your response and the clarifications on US government copyrights.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.navweaps.com/ a "high quality" reliable source?
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Neutral opinion needed for a website source Furthermore, unlike uboat.net, each page has a list of source books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's from two years ago - and it's not addressing FACs newish "high quality" requirement. I'm not concerned that it's not a reliable source, I'm more concerned with the "high quality" part. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood, and I believe that it is high-quality, not least because it does provide the sources on each page. That's not quite as nice as citing each individual fact, but far better than most online sources. So this raises the issue of what exactly constitutes a "high-quality" source. Any thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I've seen the argument, it goes something like this: a very long list of noted authors consider navweaps to be a better source than any other; they praise it and cite it in their own works. Over a month ago, we had a long discussion and worked out a compromise where we would continue to use navweaps but also use other sources too; the goal was for people who use navweaps to keep gathering data to make the case for what I just said. I expect we can make a good case now; please give us a few days to, well, herd cats :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything here is double cited already, with Navweaps.com and Campbell.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep navweaps in this article, then this would be as good a time as any to present our best evidence. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has given evidence so far in navweaps.com's favor, so it looks like it's time for it to go (at FAC level only). I remember seeing high praise for it, but we'd need a number of editors giving the links and making the case to have even a chance of keeping it at FAC, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<southern drawl>Boy, we ain't nowhere near done discussing this issue; don't you go on giving up now before our cats have even been herded.</southern drawl> I will draw attention to my response to Karanacs over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Navweaps.com_again. Little response there so I don't know what else I need to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I made it known in the last debate that I consider navweaps to be of higher quality and reliability than most published sources. Frankly, it's irritating to see it continually challenged, perhaps we should coordinate some kind of essay on the topic? bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the evidence in navweapons.com's favor, I'd point out that without this site many people like me who write about ship and ship articles would be in trouble because of the lack of good material on guns and armor and such that the site provides. We have had this discussion at least two times previously, and in the second discussion we acquiesced to a demand to double cite the information which in turn helps ensure that the sourcing in these articles remains of the highest quality since two sources are provided for a check, but I would recommend against questioning the site here since this tends to be a point of conflict between two separate camps - the one for the use of the site and the one against the use of the site - and this is a venue for discussing an article's worthiness for promotion to FA class, not about issues related to sourcing and citation. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Resolved. I would support, but I'm too involved. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone could help with "northeast" in British English, I'd be obliged. I believe we hyphenate "south-east" in this article, and my understanding is that these compass directions are generally hyphenated (unlike in American English), but I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the OED Online, which I'd personally call the authority on British English, it's hyphenated. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "the German High Seas Fleet was forbidden from risking any more losses": by the Kaiser? - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewording. That's it for me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• "but Köln was quickly crippled the squadron's guns" - something's missing here.
  • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Before she could be sunk, Beatty was distracted by the sudden appearance of the German light cruiser Ariadne directly to his front, and ordered pursuit." - misplaced modifier (right now seems as though Beatty, a woman, should be sunk)
  • Fixed, on the theory that a reader might not totally get that we're using "she" for ships (since usage varies). On the general point: not only is it okay to use the gender of personal pronouns to avoid having to repeat the noun, it's preferred. - Dank (push to talk)
• "However, the British were reading the German coded messages" - sentences should never start with "however" (or so I'm told)
  • There's a long list of words that some high school English teachers say should never start sentences, and not only is the list wrong today, it's always been wrong ... "and" and "but" are good ways to start sentences, often preferable to commonly used alternatives. See Chicago 16th, 5.220, at "and" or "but" IIRC. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Rear-Admiral Sir Archibald Moore, temporarily commanding New Zealand" - this isn't clear to me, was Moore the temporary commander of New Zealand or did he temporarily take command of the entire squadron from NZ? I suspect the latter.
  • Good catch, it's page 401 of Massie, I'll fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You might specify which German BB was damaged and which British cruisers were sunk on the 19 August operation. I don't think we have an article on it, so some extra details would be appropriate.
  • • Done.
• We could probably do without this link - it doesn't add anything to the article.
  • • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks pretty good. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Two quick ones...

• "Each set consisted of a high-pressure ahead and astern turbine driving an outboard shaft and a low-pressure ahead and astern turbine driving an inner shaft." With all the necessary "and"s due to the "ahead and asterns", would suggest a comma after the "outboard shaft".
  • Nice, done. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Princess Royal received a fire-control director between mid-1915 and May 1916 that centralised fire-control under the director officer who now fired the guns." Did this mean that the fire control director actually physically (or electronically) fired the guns? Or did he just order them to be fired? NB: I know little about fire-control!

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, he fired the guns; would you like more? - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it was the director layer in the gun director tower who fired the guns, on orders relayed from the Gunnery Officer by the 'Phone man. There was no such thing as a "director officer". --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roberts' exact language is officer in charge of the director. You're saying that was the gunnery officer?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• There seems to be a mix of British and American style flag ranks, Rear-Admiral as opposed to Rear Admiral. The former is the traditional British style.
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A bracketed explanation of what a compass point is might be in order.
  • I have one here if you (Sturm or Dank) want to lift it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, thanks Parsecboy. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The mention of the B.C.F.'s 32 point turn at Jutland is attributed to "gyro-compass" failure in Lion, which as Andrew Gordon points out in The Rules of the Game (p. 457) is a pretty pathetic excuse.
  • True, but it was the only explanation I had at the time, since Massie doesn't even mention the incident. Changed it per Brooks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-Jutland: "on faulty intelligence that they had entered a minefield," poorly worded, gives the impression that the Grand Fleet had entered a minefield owing to faulty intelligence.
  • Since I haven't Marder in front of me, and Newbolt gives a rather confused account, could you clarify it for me?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically, note 50 and Marder do not support the statement, "Princess Royal was reassigned to the Atlantic Fleet in April 1919."
  • I could have sworn that Marder did support that statement, but I've changed it to Roberts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And some more ...

• "She became the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief of the Scottish Coast on 22 February 1922" isn't directly supported by a reference, or by the reference following the next sentence. Roberts, p. 123, will do the trick.
  • Good catch, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Dogger Bank: While describing Princess Royal firing shrapnel shell at L5; "despite the fact that the maximum elevation of those guns was only 20°." Technically, this is original research. Campbell, the source given, doesn't say that the elevation was insufficient to hit aerial targets.

• It's a redlink anyway, but Rear-Admiral Moore was known as Gordon Moore, not Archibald.
  • Not according to Corbett and Newbolt.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "the destroyer HMS Landrail" and "dreadnought SMS Westfalen]] probably want the prefixes removing. Westfalen probbaly wants "dreadnought" changed to "dreadnought battleship".
  • Agree on Landrail and Westfalen, don't agree on dreadnought battleship. Hate that phrase; by definition every dreadnought is a battleship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep looking. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:55, 28 September 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.