344:) before the main narrative starts, and I think copyeditors should generally observe and support rather than push against clear consensus. I understand that there's value in making the point right up front that the writers have done their homework and know the ship thoroughly, but in Knowledge (XXG)'s high-level non-ship articles (such as aviation articles), this level of detail is more often than not avoided in early sections, and I don't offhand see any part of the narrative that I wouldn't understand if most of what's in
852:—It's a decent enough article. The historical jumping back and forth bothers me a little, but I can live with that. What seems to be a more serious lapse is the complete lack of information about the ship's commanding officers and their level of experience. Did I miss something, or is there a reason this isn't included? The German commanders are listed for the final battle, for example.
268:
there's nothing wrong with "10 Downing Street" (that is, there's no absolute rule against beginning a proper noun with a numeral). My call would be to go with "No. 800 Squadron" at first occurrence in an article and "800 Squadron", "801 Squadron", etc., after that (and I made the edit). So for instance, I'm leaving the next sentence alone: "
173:
This
British battlecruiser was one of a class of three built during World War I that were nicknamed the 'Weird Sisters'. They sacrificed armour in favour of a large-calibre armament and very high speed. The ship and her two sisters were all converted to aircraft carriers during the 1920s lest they be
314:
I'm assuming you did your usual thorough job and that the reason you're not telling us how many survived the sinking (in the lead or text) is that reliable figures aren't available ... still, "518" deaths with no additional information feels like a case of raising an unanswered question to me, that
748:
I've clarified that no aircraft managed to take off before she was torpedoed. I've found a by-name roster of survivors and the lost, but I don't know if it's complete and therefore won't spend the time to tally up the numbers myself. I'm rather fond of
Sturtivant, though I've not seen that book of
267:
I'm getting over 19K hits for "No. 800 Squadron" ... I haven't verified all of those of course, but I do see a lot of hits, including in
Knowledge (XXG). I agree that we can't say "800th" or "The 800 Squadron", that we should attempt to get as close to correct military usage as possible, and that
295:"after the end of the war": after the war. Good grief, who was your copyeditor (oh wait ...) Btw, in cases where you want to mention a specific number of months, you can make a case that, say, "two months after the end of the war" would be okay, although for my money, "two months after the
920:
The RN had a doctrine/tradition for their battlecruisers, the
Courageous-class ships didn't fit that doctrine. It included fighting their way through an enemy screening force to locate the main battle force, something that even armoured cruisers were not judged capable of doing.
672:-- Minor copyedit but not much needed re. prose; detail, referencing, structure and supporting materials all check out as well. My only minor suggestion is that it looks a bit odd having only one subsection in a section so what about changing the
917:"To obtain ships suitable for traditional battlecruiser roles": if the battlecruiser only appeared in the first decade of the twentieth century, how can this role be considered "traditional"? Isn't this just the traditional role of the cruiser?
398:"The 1st Cruiser Squadron were ... but were": It's complicated, but all things considered (you use "was" above; it's multiple ships rather than multiple people, and it looks quite strange to Americans), I changed "were" to "was". - Dank (
411:
But you treat squadrons as singular elsewhere in the article. My sense is that the Brits need "were" for a group of people, and can go either way if we're talking about a group of things containing a group of people. - Dank
178:
330:"which had to be curtailed after structural damage.": This too seems to raise a question it doesn't answer (damage from what?) ... I removed this here, since the question is answered a few paragraphs below. - Dank (
117:
1069:
Lots of criticism, mainly centered around their near-total lack of armour and light scantlings. But little of it is in a form suitable for wiki, IMO. They had lots of nicknames, I gave one used by the RN
1002:"Courageous and the light cruiser Cardiff opened fire with their forward guns seven minutes later": Is there a range listed at which the ships opened fire? This might give a little context for the battle.
763:
The actual event probably easy enough to find in many other World War II; its probably worth checking to see if one of these numbers is more common (or the air crew casualties are separated out)
954:"...the installation used in the light cruiser Champion ... was simply doubled...": does this mean twice as big or twice as many turbines? The latter I suspect, but it would be good to clarify.
769:
I checked 7 print sources: 518 in 3, 516 in 1, 515 in 2, no number in 1. Only one 518 was cited, the rest were uncited; I guess 519 is close enough. Thanks for adding the aircraft detail.
726:
315:
is, this is one of those points where the reader might start skipping ahead in vain. It would help to say something like "only a few survivors" if you don't know exactly how many. - Dank (
174:
scrapped to met the tonnage limitations of the
Washington Naval Treaty. While hunting U-boats at the beginning of World War II, she became the first British warship sunk during the war.
1050:, their designs were treated with skepticism in both the press and the fleet, with their value being perceived as minimal. But I don't see any coverage of this criticism, either in the
972:"In mid-1917, she received half a dozen torpedo mounts...": this apparently gives the ship a total of 14 torpedo tubes, but she only carried ten torpedoes. Did the capacity change?
515:
981:
Can't, my sources don't actually say that each torpedo tube had a torpedo in it; that's the natural inference. I did clarify that the reloads were for the submerged tubes.--
299:" would be better. If anyone wants to remove "the start of" from "a few months before the start of the Second World War" later in the lead section, I won't holler. - Dank (
874:
OK, but how does that really help anything? Meyrick and
Bromley are notable, but I need to confirm the exact role of flag captain during this period before I'll add them.
924:
Right. My issue isn't with the role, but with the word "Tradition". A role that is a decade old doesn't meet my expectation of a "tradition". Doctrine might be better.
975:
The capacity was based on her submerged tubes. I don't believe that any reloads were provided for the deck tubes. But each deck tube had a torpedo in it, I believe.
936:"...the first large warships...": this does not explain what is a "large warship". Is it just anything larger than a light cruiser, or is it a particular tonnage?
40:
457:"Rear-Admiral": Correct me if I'm wrong; I think we decided to go with "Rear Admiral" (no hyphen) but "Vice-Admiral" in BritEng. I made the edit. - Dank (
725:
I think you need to re-research the casualty numbers; the single source you cited is very difficult to find so I can't verify its number but I've found
1022:"She also received four water-cooled .50-calibre Mark III machine guns in a single quadruple mounting": do we know what for and where it was located?
280:
were embarked for reconnaissance and anti-ship attack missions during the same period." This is a judgment call, and discussion is welcome. - Dank (
30:
17:
88:
83:
92:
408:
This may be a case of mutually annoying usage between BritEng and AmerEng. I believe that the Brits are quite fond of "were" in this context.
75:
133:
1012:"...2-pounder "pom-pom" Mark VII mounts...": it might be good to clarify that this was for anti-aircraft fire, rather than ship-to-ship.
1100:
1079:
1035:
990:
899:
842:
818:
758:
743:
712:
697:
663:
623:
594:
584:
567:
548:
523:
500:
479:
462:
448:
435:
417:
403:
388:
353:
335:
320:
304:
285:
252:
238:
207:
190:
165:
957:
The latter, but how to word it? Twinned, repeated, duplicated, etc.? None of them read any better. Doubling is what my sources used.
855:
The names of her captains generally aren't available in my sources. I can add it for her sinking, but probably not many other times.
325:
Yeah, no figure for survivors can be found, but they likely outnumbered the dead, given the total of 1200-odd crew and air group.
138:
890:
I've added one notable captain and an admiral to the article, once a friend pointed out some sources regarding their service.--
1055:
945:
It is large and vague, but perfectly accurate. The RN went from a ship of 3750 tons to one of 20,000 tons in one step.
797:
Note 29 (Air-Britain) - does that article have footnotes/references for its information? (Do I need to track it down?)
688:). This would also maintain a more obvious sense of chronology, i.e. WWI, then between the wars, then WWII. Cheers,
79:
1006:
Not given, everything's time based in the accounts. She opened fire 7 minutes after spotting the German ships.
942:"large" seems vague and relative. Can the wording be used more concisely? Maybe "larger classes" for example.
383:.": This would be easier to follow if the second sentence began, "She became flagship ... after ...". - Dank (
1075:
1031:
986:
895:
814:
754:
708:
654:
614:
580:
496:
475:
248:
186:
161:
296:
277:
273:
269:
427:
340:
We have a consensus among writers of articles on cruisers and battleships to insert a technical section (
511:
544:
470:
Based on the official RN account of
Dunkirk that I just read, I've decided to hyphenate both ranks.--
368:
234:
203:
939:
It wasn't defined that strictly, but light cruisers weren't considered large warships at that time.
838:
803:
739:
559:
1051:
71:
64:
1071:
1027:
982:
891:
810:
750:
704:
693:
640:
600:
576:
575:
from 2009 gives much of that same text. So I think that it copied Wiki rather than the reverse.--
492:
471:
244:
182:
157:
834:
799:
735:
786:
Perhaps so, but it's not in Burt or
Friedman. It's a secondary source, so why does it matter?
375:
on 31 May 1916 the squadron was disbanded, but it was re-formed near the end of the year with
372:
859:
1094:
882:
540:
230:
199:
733:(probably not the most reliable source). I would also specify all 24 Swordfish were lost.
865:
590:
563:
519:
458:
444:
431:
413:
399:
384:
358:
I generally prefer to follow a roughly chronological order, for the sake of simplicity.
349:
331:
316:
300:
281:
749:
his before, but he may be counting just the ship's crew and excluding the air group.--
960:
Couldn't you just say they doubled the number of turbines? Otherwise it's too vague.
689:
537:
869:
109:
766:
Palomar and Genda give 519. No number at all in Rohwer, Conway's or J. D. Brown.
1090:
878:
364:
53:
533:
861:
The only other names I could locate were
Captain Arthur Bromley, 1916-1919,
363:"Upon commissioning, she served with the 3rd Light Cruiser Squadron of the
730:
858:
Captain
William Totfield Makeig-Jones, 24 July 1939; died on the bridge.
554:
Yay for Copyscape. Sturm, the problem is limited to the last section,
877:
Ah... I think I'm done commenting here. Good luck with your article.
181:
a year ago and has been updated to better conform to FAC standards.--
783:
I would think this information could be found in a tertiary source.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
536:
searches have revealed that 4% of the content matches this source.
467:
I never can keep it straight which is the preferred British usage.
862:
809:
I don't know, I've never seen a copy of an issue to even guess.--
823:
Sturtivant on pg. 14 matches the info closely enough for me.
781:
Note 24 is sourced for just the cost of conversion number;
143:
118:
Featured article candidates/HMS Courageous (50)/archive1
573:
213:
Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or not
105:
101:
97:
57:
491:
See two sentences previous. Thanks for the copyedit.--
309:
Added the date of the start of WWII if that helps any.
348:
were moved to a separate section at the end. - Dank (
871:and Captain Geoffrey Alexander Rotherham, 1938-39.
572:Maybe not. That website is copyright 2010 and this
1110:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
558:; some rewording needs to be done there. See
1116:No further edits should be made to this page.
927:Done, but I don't think it's any improvement.
684:a subheader immediately after (same level as
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
539:, which claims to be © 2010 Yearsley DNA.
122:
789:That's what I meant, thanks for checking.
243:You think it should be 3rd revised ed.?--
229:Check edition capitalization for Rohwer.
430:. I can elaborate if you like. - Dank (
216:Damn, I thought I'd caught all of those.
727:17 officers and 464 men (481) on pg. 33
379:as flagship along with her sister ship
290:Not fond of it, but I can live with it.
125:
115:
1042:From what I read of the two vessels,
978:Okay. Could the article say so then?
7:
914:Some lesser concerns caught my eye:
703:Good idea, thanks for the review.--
263:. As always, feel free to revert.
24:
488:"During this time": which time?
1026:Added. Thanks for the review.--
1056:Courageous class battlecruiser
1:
1101:03:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
1080:05:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
1036:03:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
991:05:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
900:22:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
843:19:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
819:00:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
759:02:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
744:23:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
713:05:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
698:01:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
664:12:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
624:12:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
501:20:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
480:22:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
449:22:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
426:"the Admiralty decided": See
418:22:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
595:16:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
585:16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
568:14:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
556:Second World War and sinking
549:14:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
524:16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
463:15:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
436:15:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
404:15:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
389:14:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
354:14:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
336:13:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
321:13:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
305:13:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
286:13:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
253:16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
239:12:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
208:12:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
191:06:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
166:06:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
1058:. (They were nicknamed the
31:featured article nomination
1133:
599:Yay for uncredited reuse.
177:This article received its
1113:Please do not modify it.
680:(or similar) and making
56:15:58, 23 November 2011
36:Please do not modify it.
346:Origin and construction
342:Origin and construction
198:- spotchecks not done.
518:are my edits. - Dank (
428:WP:Checklist#intention
866:Sidney Julius Meyrick
589:Sigh. Sorry. - Dank (
369:1st Cruiser Squadron
367:. After most of the
221:Where is Greenwich?
1052:HMS Courageous (50)
512:standard disclaimer
72:HMS Courageous (50)
65:HMS Courageous (50)
661:
621:
443:Tweaked. - Dank (
373:Battle of Jutland
169:
151:
150:
1124:
1115:
678:Between the wars
660:
655:
652:
620:
615:
612:
371:was sunk at the
154:
123:
113:
95:
48:The article was
38:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1111:
1066:by the press.)
656:
649:
645:
641:
616:
609:
605:
601:
530:Copyscape check
86:
70:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1130:
1128:
1119:
1118:
1105:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1054:article or in
1040:
1039:
1038:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1009:
1008:
1007:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
846:
845:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
716:
715:
667:
666:
647:
643:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
607:
603:
527:
526:
505:
504:
503:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
396:
395:
394:
361:
360:
359:
338:
328:
327:
326:
312:
311:
310:
293:
292:
291:
258:
257:
256:
255:
227:
226:
225:
219:
218:
217:
179:A-class review
171:
170:
156:Nominator(s):
149:
148:
147:
146:
144:External links
141:
136:
128:
127:
121:
120:
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1129:
1117:
1114:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1092:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:Sturmvogel 66
1068:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:Sturmvogel 66
1025:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1000:
992:
988:
984:
983:Sturmvogel 66
980:
979:
977:
976:
974:
973:
971:
962:
961:
959:
958:
956:
955:
953:
944:
943:
941:
940:
938:
937:
935:
926:
925:
923:
922:
919:
918:
916:
915:
913:
901:
897:
893:
892:Sturmvogel 66
889:
888:
886:
885:
880:
876:
875:
873:
872:
870:
867:
863:
860:
857:
856:
854:
853:
851:
848:
847:
844:
840:
836:
832:
829:
822:
821:
820:
816:
812:
811:Sturmvogel 66
808:
807:
805:
801:
798:
795:
788:
787:
785:
784:
782:
779:
768:
767:
765:
764:
762:
761:
760:
756:
752:
751:Sturmvogel 66
747:
746:
745:
741:
737:
734:
732:
728:
723:
722:
721:
720:
714:
710:
706:
705:Sturmvogel 66
702:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
665:
662:
659:
653:
651:
639:You're good.
638:
635:
634:
625:
622:
619:
613:
611:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
577:Sturmvogel 66
574:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
535:
531:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:on prose per
509:
506:
502:
498:
494:
493:Sturmvogel 66
490:
489:
487:
481:
477:
473:
472:Sturmvogel 66
469:
468:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
450:
446:
442:
441:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
419:
415:
410:
409:
407:
406:
405:
401:
397:
392:
391:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
357:
356:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
337:
333:
329:
324:
323:
322:
318:
313:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
289:
288:
287:
283:
279:
278:821 Squadrons
275:
271:
266:
265:
264:
262:
254:
250:
246:
245:Sturmvogel 66
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
223:
222:
220:
215:
214:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
197:
196:Source review
193:
192:
188:
184:
183:Sturmvogel 66
180:
175:
168:
167:
163:
159:
158:Sturmvogel 66
153:
152:
145:
142:
140:
137:
135:
132:
131:
130:
129:
124:
119:
116:
114:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1112:
1109:
1104:
1095:
1088:
1063:
1059:
1047:
1043:
1021:
1011:
1001:
883:
849:
833:- nice work
830:
796:
780:
724:
718:
717:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
668:
657:
642:
637:Media Review
636:
617:
602:
591:push to talk
564:push to talk
555:
529:
528:
520:push to talk
507:
459:push to talk
445:push to talk
432:push to talk
414:push to talk
400:push to talk
385:push to talk
380:
376:
350:push to talk
345:
341:
332:push to talk
317:push to talk
301:push to talk
282:push to talk
260:
259:
195:
194:
176:
172:
155:
139:Citation bot
69:
49:
47:
35:
28:
676:heading to
541:Graham Colm
365:Grand Fleet
1048:Courageous
868:, 1920-21,
682:Conversion
674:Conversion
562:. - Dank (
377:Courageous
231:Nikkimaria
200:Nikkimaria
1089:Regards,
1070:itself.--
686:Air group
560:this page
534:Copyscape
440:Changed.
393:Rewritten
297:Armistice
1064:Spurious
1062:and the
1044:Glorious
864:Captain
719:Comments
690:Ian Rose
381:Glorious
261:Comments
134:Analysis
50:promoted
1060:Curious
850:Comment
831:Support
670:Support
650:anguard
610:anguard
508:Support
126:Toolbox
89:protect
84:history
729:, and
93:delete
54:Ucucha
1016:Done.
963:Done.
516:These
224:Done.
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1096:talk
1076:talk
1046:and
1032:talk
987:talk
896:talk
884:talk
839:talk
835:Kirk
815:talk
804:talk
800:Kirk
755:talk
740:talk
736:Kirk
709:talk
694:talk
658:Wha?
646:ven
618:Wha?
606:ven
581:talk
545:talk
497:talk
476:talk
276:and
249:talk
235:talk
204:talk
187:talk
162:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
1091:RJH
879:RJH
731:515
274:820
270:810
52:by
1099:)
1078:)
1034:)
989:)
898:)
887:)
841:)
817:)
806:)
757:)
742:)
711:)
696:)
593:)
583:)
566:)
547:)
532:–
522:)
514:.
499:)
478:)
461:)
447:)
434:)
416:)
402:)
387:)
352:)
334:)
319:)
303:)
284:)
272:,
251:)
237:)
206:)
189:)
164:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
59:.
33:.
1093:(
1074:(
1030:(
985:(
894:(
881:(
837:(
813:(
802:(
753:(
738:(
707:(
692:(
648:M
644:S
608:M
604:S
579:(
543:(
495:(
474:(
412:(
247:(
233:(
202:(
185:(
160:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.