- 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.
Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
« Return to A-Class review list[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
HMS Erin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
HMS Erin was one of the two battleships being built for the Ottomans when World War I began and was seized by the British, which probably contributed to the Turkish decision to enter the war. Like almost all of the British dreadnoughts she had an uneventful war; even more so than the others as she was the only British dreadnought not to fire her main armament during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. After the war Erin became a training ship before she was sold in 1922. As usual I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and any unexplained or unlinked nautical jargon before I send this up to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- Fix the seized date in the infobox.
- According to Fromkin, the seizure was illegal, since Britain was not yet at war - don't know if this merits being included
- Comment: According to Hough, Richard (1967). The Great Dreadnought: The Strange Story of H.M.S. Agincourt: The Mightiest Battleship of World War I. New York: Harper & Row. OCLC 914101. on page 121 the seizure was allowed for in the building contract, per the HMS Agincourt (1913) article. Probably worth investigating further. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hough is simply mistaken, which is not surprising given the age of the book. Fromkin goes into great detail on the lengths to which the British sought legal avenues to acquire the ships, and failing to do so, seized them anyway. Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, very well then, it's been a while since I read Fromkin. Might be worth mentioning the anti-British sentiment the seizures caused. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not actually clear what the impact was as Hough's pretty unreliable due to age, although Fromkin speculates that the Turks used the ships as bargaining chips to get the Germans to sign an alliance that obligated them to defend the Turks, even though they already knew that the Brits were going to seize them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What did the boilers burn?
- I don't think the dreadnoughtproject.org qualifies as an RS.
- It's now judged to be highly reliable, see: [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Neptune (1909)/archive1]
- Commons category link needs to be updated.
Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - all images appear to be correctly licensed, with working source links. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanley, Victor. Service Record. Missing Year/Date. Missing Location. (?)
- That was me trying to be clever.
- Campbell 1981 in refs but not notes
- Campbell, N. J. M. (1981). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
- Monograph No. 12: The Action of Dogger Bank–24th January 1915 (PDF). Missing Location (7 with; 2 without); Missing OCLC; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The monograph doesn't have a location. I suppose I could add location=np or whatever it is that catalogers use in these sorts of situations. Added all the locations of the various Navy Lists that I think you meant. Thanks for such a close review of the sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just pining your support as a formality @Lingzhi. Please ping to respond. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments
- Should "Vickers company" be "Vickers Company"?
- "The main gun turret were 11 inches (279 mm) thick" turrets?
- "honor" should be "honour"
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: G'day, Sturm, looks pretty good to me. I have the following observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- slightly inconsistent: "25,280 long tons (25,690 t) at deep load" in the body v. "25,250 long tons (25,660 t) (deep load)" (in the infobox)
- inconsistent: "She was laid down at the Vickers shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness on 6 December 1911" (body) v. "Laid down: 1 August 1911"
- the seized date of 31 July 1914 does not appear outside of the infobox
- It's not spelled out, but to detain the ships on 29 July and prevent Ottoman naval personnel from boarding them; two days later, British sailors formally seized them
- "When Stanley was promoted to Rear-Admiral..." --> "rear-admiral" per WP:MILTERMS
- there are no dabs, and the ext links all work (no action required)
- most of the images lack alt text and while it isn't a requirement, you may consider adding it: [1]
- in the Citations, # 26 has a typo in the title: "&c"
- same as above for Citations # 27, 38 & 40
- That's exactly the spelling used by the sources
- in the Citations, "p. 695–6" --> "pp. 695–6"
- That's the enumeration used in the source. Probably because the Navy List used specific pages for various sections and when the data for one exceeded the space available they used these sorts of interpolated page numbers.
- In the References section, is there a page range that could be added for Preston's chapter in Gray?
- The discussion above 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.