106:. Let me give a few examples of where the coverage of the article could be improved. Who were the commanding officers? How was the crew made up in terms of numbers of people in different departments of the ship? How successful was the fire control? Note also that two of the books in the references list are by the same author, but the authors are listed differently N. J. M. Campbell and John Campbell, which is unhelpful. (The author used both ways of referring to himself - in
143:
after fixing their formatting to match my own, so your claim of edit warring is undeserved and unsubstantiated. As a point of information, you would do well to match the existing formatting for notes and such when adding information to articles that are substantially complete. It saves work on behalf of the primary editor if the article is going to go for ACR or FAC where such trivial things matter.--
833:
tenuous bridges across; others fill in the chasm. The fill-in-the-chasm approach to the navweaps problem would be just to help DiGiulian get navweaps published. I expect there would be a readership, especially in these days of e-readers and tablets and smartphones, and I'd be happy to copyedit. Is anyone from SHIPS in touch with him? - Dank (
713:
maybe I'm wrong and if the previous style (i.e only mentioning "am" or "pm" on first mention and when it changes) has consensus in the Ships project and if it hasn't been raised as an issue at FAC, I'd be against making a blanket request for change on the basis of this ACR. Sorry if that sounds like sitting on the fence.
668:
not. The destroyer Shark spotted the German armoured cruiser Roon and her escorts at about 7:00, but could not transmit the message until 7:25. ... message to Beatty at 7:36, but did not manage to make contact until 7:55." Is anyone else unclear about whether we're talking about morning or evening? Agreed that
727:
I'm with AR here. All I expect is consistency, mufti time or 24 hour time I don't really mind, but I don't see why we would be purposefully unclear, which IMO this seemed to be. That said if its accepted convention I'm prepared to move on. Although it leaves me scratching my head I certainly have no
686:
I also raised this issue in my comments (above). In my opinion it is not confusing if the reader is paying attention and reading the whole article, however, if a reader is quickly searching for a small bit of information about when something happened it may be confusing. That being said, I'm not one
142:
You're pretty quick to throw out an accusation of edit warring. I rolled your changes back because your disambiguation for the references were in a style that I particularly despise and find horribly redundant. However, you failed to note that all of your more substantial changes were added back in,
135:
Fire control. I think the fact that she made a number of hits, as noted in the article, speaks pretty much for her gunnery and fire control. That aside I don't think that any hit ratio can be derived for comparison purposes because nobody knows exactly how many rounds she fired before she blew up.
712:
I'm not sure really. Personally I'm not sure that it would be repetition to use "am" and "pm" for all times (for me it is a matter of clarity over repetition - for instance we always state what unit of measure we are using), and my reading of MOSTIME is that it does in fact ask for this. However,
667:
This apparently is the section
Anotherclown had a problem with: "... 5:15 am and fought an inconclusive action with them. Vice Admiral Sir George Warrender, commanding the 2nd Battle Squadron, had received a signal at 5:40 that the destroyer Lynx was engaging enemy destroyers although Beatty had
307:
Toddy, some wikiprojects are easygoing, and whatever you want to do is okay; SHIPS isn't one of those projects :) We've discussed how much to report about the crew quite a bit, and Sturm is following the consensus. Having said that, if you want to suggest a sentence to add about the crew, let's
832:
Ah, I see you're using navweaps.com. There's a saying I learned a long time ago in math grad school that may be completely apocryphal, because I can't pull up any relevant ghits: when there's a chasm between where you are and where you want to be, some mathematicians prefer to build delicate,
701:
I missed that you brought it up, Rupert. Okay, putting "am" after each isn't IMO an option, most readers would perceive it as needlessly repetitious. So would you two prefer 24-hour clocks in SHIPS articles where there are multiple times close together, or in all SHIPS articles? I have no
599:
The citation checker tool reveals a number of errors: "Roberts, p. 83" (Multiple references contain the same content), "Roberts, p. 123" (Multiple references contain the same content), "r3" (Multiple references are using the same name) and "b7" (Multiple references are using the same name).
332:
if I can start doing my copyediting in the last 24 hours of the A-class review, so that the article hasn't changed too much and is still fresh in my mind when I review it for FAC. If folks go along with that, then I'll have a look at this one when it gets listed there for closing. - Dank
87:
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've been sadly neglecting my responsibilities as as member of OMT to fulfill our goal of the largest featured topic in Wiki. I believe that it meets the criteria, but look forward to working with reviewers to improve the
818:": unless someone has changed MOSNUM and MOS, we don't do conversions inside links, because the links serve as names, because people in metric countries often use inches to describe the guns, and because the conversion is easy enough to find on the other side of the link.
110:, he used John Campbell on the cover and N. J. M. Campbellon the title page and on the page that contained publication data. I am not really sure why Sturmvogel 66 felt it necessary to change the edition being cited either, seemed like edit warring to me. --
652:
Well, I'd for one disagree about needlessly confusing as the context makes it perfectly clear after the first use if am or pm is being used. So to conform to the MOS and avoid needless typing and useless redundancy, I've switched everything over to military
742:
I can't find it in my style guides at the moment; can I ask you to trust me on this one? "At 8:00 am this, at 8:15 am that, at 8:30 am the other" is more or less unknown in scholarly prose, although it would work as something list-y of course. - Dank
500:
It's your call, and its not a war stopper for me, but my understanding is that what was said at FAC was that it should be in the See also section, or if there is none, in the first endnotes section. For instance, look at at how it is done in
406:
in the
General characteristics section, it might be too much detail for the article (I'm a layman) but I'm curious - where did other battlecruisers place the officers' quarters if not where they were traditionally placed?
843:
There may not be much of a market for a book as you propose. I'll have to swap out all the
Navweaps.com refs before I sent it to FAC unless I want to fill in the chasm with an essay justifying it as a highly-reliable
252:
I believe that the consensus is against lists of commanding officers, which I generally agree with. However, I'm less irritated by them if they can be worked into the text somehow if they're notable in their own
608:"Queen Mary's first action was as part of the battlecruiser force under the command of Admiral Beatty". This should just be "Beatty" not "Admiral Beatty". Rank should not be used after the first mention per
293:
Sorry, most authors don't seem to agree with you, which makes it hard to cover, with the partial exception of ship biographies. And even then it has the potential of overwhelming the rest of the article.--
829:
Does "HA" mean "high altitude"? You only use it once, so even if "HA" is the usual designation, "high altitude" would probably be kinder to the reader. (Okay, looks like you changed it to "high angle".)
620:
There seem to be some inconsistency with times, in some instances you use "7:00" in others "1:10 pm". The issue being having "am" and "pm" in some places but not others. Needs to be consistant per
864:"Her after torpedo director": I changed it to "aft". It's not uncommon, and less like to confuse the casual reader. I see you also choose "aft" more often than not as the adjective form.
422:
279:
I feel fairly sure that the crew does matter on a ship. So information on crewing arrangements is as useful and informative as information on the engines, or the gun mountings.--
451:
in the Raid on
Scarborough section, "Vice Admiral Sir George Warrender" and then "Admiral Warrender" - inconsistent, also you probably don't need to mention rank a second time;
935:
21:
129:
Commanding officers. That's a fair cop, gov, but only
Reginald Hall is actually notable. So I've added a reference to him, but not to Cecil Prowse, who is not notable, AFAIK.
687:
to buck consensus so I'm happy to accept it if it is a previously established convention. Nevertheless, the change to 24 hour time seems to resolve the issue. Regards,
475:
in the
Footnotes section, # 41 there is a slight inconsistency "Campbell (1998), p. 338" is different to the presentation used in Footnote # 9 "Campbell 1978, p. 33";
638:
Hmm from reading above I can see this has already been raised. That said I'm not satisfied with the response. IMO this is inconsistent and needlessly confusing.
975:
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.
398:
in the
General charactersitics section, "to place her officer's quarters in" this should be "officers' quarters" (position of the apostrophe denotes plural);
483:
should the Portal be in the
Bibliography? I seem to remember a comment at FAC that it should be in the first "endnotes" section - I might be wrong, though.
539:
in the infobox it says that the ship was completed in August 1913, but in the prose it says "completed on 4 September 1913". Should this be changed?
157:
No doubt you change the edition of
Campbell's book on Jutland cited from the 1986 UK edition to the 1998 US edition for the reasons specified above:
17:
880:"almost immediately": usually doesn't mean anything, and I usually delete the phrase. If it happened "immediately", that's worth mentioning.
187:
169:
960:
943:
923:
913:
899:
854:
838:
796:
781:
748:
737:
722:
707:
696:
681:
662:
647:
633:
576:
562:
548:
528:
513:
492:
434:
423:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_101#Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Military_history.2FAssessment.2FErnst_Lindemann
381:
338:
313:
302:
288:
262:
247:
221:
207:
152:
119:
97:
57:
502:
603:
The only significant one was the multiple use of
Roberts, which has been corrected. There are no other redundant entries now.
238:
My belief is that it is useful to have a list of commanding officers in articles on ships if the information can be found.--
523:
section. Last time I looked, that's not in the style guidelines. This is something Sandy always keeps an eye on. - Dank (
467:
in the Footnotes section, # 23 "Roberts, Battlecruisers. p. 123" seems to be formatted differently to the other citations;
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
390:
in the General characteristics section, both paragraphs begin the same way - could it be reworded slight for variation?
801:
Thanks, that's nice to hear. I'd like to think that my writing's improved after all the work in the last year or two.
519:
Sandy says that everyone at FAC (except SHIPS people) puts their portal links in the first end section if there's no
815:
718:
692:
572:
544:
509:
488:
430:
377:
676:
about that a couple of months ago. IIRC, no one had a problem with the format Sturm is (was) using here. - Dank (
791:(I think) on the assumption this is headed to FAC ... if not, it's perfectly good BritEng like it is. - Dank (
673:
362:
909:
895:
658:
558:
298:
258:
217:
148:
93:
77:
733:
643:
629:
904:
No further info, but I've reworded the sentence to put things in chronological order. See how it reads.--
952:
714:
688:
568:
540:
505:
484:
426:
421:
Hi, my understanding is that "Vice-Admiral" is hyphenated, but not "Rear Admiral". See this discussion:
373:
787:
It's a pleasure to copyedit your articles btw. I changed 'Run to the South' to "Run to the South" per
366:"Lion class" should be "Lion-class" (infobox and General characteristics section) - per previous ACRs;
329:
887:, it would be better to move this back to approximately the point in the narrative when it happened.
669:
621:
609:
872:"Rear Admiral David Beatty": Rear Admiral Sir David Beatty, maybe? Was he knighted at this point?
132:
Crew composition. Not known, nor do I feel that it's particularly relevant for an article in Wiki.
905:
891:
654:
554:
294:
254:
213:
144:
89:
73:
53:
729:
639:
625:
184:
166:
884:
849:"In addition they were given an upper armour belt": not sure what "they" refers to. - Dank (
776:. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (
284:
243:
203:
115:
788:
443:
some of the times seem to use "am" and "pm", but others don't - should this be consistent?
369:
No, they're not compound adjectives. Just an ordinary adjective modifying the noun "class"
139:
Campbell. Lemme dig up a copy and I'll see how he's shown on the one that I have access to.
956:
939:
919:
850:
834:
792:
777:
744:
703:
677:
524:
334:
309:
63:
212:
Actually my personal copy, which just arrived, is the Naval Institute Press edition.--
49:
890:
Lemme look through my sources, the times may not be known with any exactitude.--
280:
239:
199:
111:
410:
They were amidships, where the officers were closer to their duty positions.
361:
images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only):
372:
Fair enough, it seems I've misunderstood what was said previously then.
821:
What's a superelevating prism? A PVI mount? Neither gets any ghits.
497:
I believe that it's supposed to be in the See also section if any.
459:
in the Notes section, I think # 2 probably should have a citation;
415:"Rear-Admiral David Beatty" - I don't think the hyphen is correct;
126:
Let's break this down in a format more convenient to respond to:
824:
Link to optical prism and deleted all mount info as TMI.
446:
Am and pm are only used the first time they are needed.
358:
images appear correctly licenced (no action required);
883:"she had been hit twice earlier by Seydlitz": Per
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
875:He wasn't knighted for almost another year.
136:The common estimate of 150 is just that.
672:is unclear, and I asked a question at
7:
553:Good catch, thanks for the review.--
181:Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting
163:Jutland, an Analysis of the Fighting
108:Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting
33:The following discussion is closed.
728:interest in taking it any further.
567:No worries, I've added my support.
918:Yeah, I like that better. - Dank (
28:
969:The discussion above is closed.
503:SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)
934:Okay, not a lot left to fix.
1:
355:no dab links, ext links work;
702:preference. Sturm? - Dank (
418:It's a British thing, IIRC.
161:Campbell, N. J. M. (1986).
992:
961:22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
944:00:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
924:00:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
914:23:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
900:21:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
855:21:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
839:21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
797:19:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
782:19:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
749:12:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
738:10:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
723:08:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
708:00:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
697:00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
682:17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
663:16:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
648:08:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
634:08:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
577:22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
563:21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
549:02:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
529:17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
514:22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
493:01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
435:22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
382:22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
314:17:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
303:21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
289:06:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
263:21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
248:06:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
222:21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
208:06:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
98:03:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
58:13:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
806:What's a cruising stage?
339:19:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
183:. New York: Lyons Press.
153:22:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
120:17:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
972:Please do not modify it.
36:Please do not modify it.
330:WT:MHC#ACRs for closure
179:Campbell, John (1998).
938:are my edits. - Dank (
816:BL 13.5-inch Mk V guns
814:I made the change to "
789:WP:MOS#Quotation marks
328:. I've asked over at
308:have a look. - Dank (
953:standard disclaimer
885:WP:MHCL#chronology
165:. London: Conway.
859:Copy-paste error.
82:
983:
974:
715:AustralianRupert
689:AustralianRupert
569:AustralianRupert
541:AustralianRupert
506:AustralianRupert
485:AustralianRupert
427:AustralianRupert
374:AustralianRupert
193:
175:
70:
38:
991:
990:
986:
985:
984:
982:
981:
980:
979:
970:
190:
178:
172:
160:
104:Needs more work
67:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
989:
987:
978:
977:
965:
964:
963:
946:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
881:
878:
877:
876:
870:
869:
868:
862:
861:
860:
847:
846:
845:
830:
827:
826:
825:
819:
812:
811:
810:
804:
803:
802:
772:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
618:
617:
616:
606:
605:
604:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
481:
480:
479:
473:
472:
471:
465:
464:
463:
457:
456:
455:
449:
448:
447:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
413:
412:
411:
404:
403:
402:
396:
395:
394:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
364:
359:
356:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
305:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
196:
195:
194:
188:
176:
170:
140:
137:
133:
130:
123:
122:
86:
84:
83:
72:Nominator(s):
66:
64:HMS Queen Mary
61:
43:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
988:
976:
973:
967:
966:
962:
958:
954:
951:on prose per
950:
947:
945:
941:
937:
933:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
906:Sturmvogel 66
903:
902:
901:
897:
893:
892:Sturmvogel 66
889:
888:
886:
882:
879:
874:
873:
871:
866:
865:
863:
858:
857:
856:
852:
848:
842:
841:
840:
836:
831:
828:
823:
822:
820:
817:
813:
808:
807:
805:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
750:
746:
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
711:
710:
709:
705:
700:
699:
698:
694:
690:
685:
684:
683:
679:
675:
671:
666:
665:
664:
660:
656:
655:Sturmvogel 66
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
614:
613:
611:
607:
602:
601:
598:
597:
596:
593:
592:
588:
587:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
555:Sturmvogel 66
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
530:
526:
522:
518:
517:
515:
511:
507:
504:
499:
498:
496:
495:
494:
490:
486:
482:
477:
476:
474:
469:
468:
466:
461:
460:
458:
453:
452:
450:
445:
444:
442:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
419:
417:
416:
414:
409:
408:
405:
400:
399:
397:
392:
391:
389:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
368:
367:
365:
363:
360:
357:
354:
353:
352:
350:
346:
343:
342:
341:
340:
336:
331:
327:
315:
311:
306:
304:
300:
296:
295:Sturmvogel 66
292:
291:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
264:
260:
256:
255:Sturmvogel 66
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
223:
219:
215:
214:Sturmvogel 66
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
197:
191:
189:1-55821-759-2
186:
182:
177:
173:
171:0-85177-379-6
168:
164:
159:
158:
156:
155:
154:
150:
146:
145:Sturmvogel 66
141:
138:
134:
131:
128:
127:
125:
124:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
102:
101:
100:
99:
95:
91:
90:Sturmvogel 66
81:
79:
75:
74:Sturmvogel 66
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
37:
31:
30:
23:
19:
971:
968:
957:push to talk
948:
940:push to talk
920:push to talk
851:push to talk
835:push to talk
793:push to talk
778:push to talk
773:
771:
745:push to talk
730:Anotherclown
704:push to talk
678:push to talk
640:Anotherclown
626:Anotherclown
594:
590:
589:
525:push to talk
520:
348:
347:
344:
335:push to talk
325:
324:
310:push to talk
180:
162:
107:
103:
85:
71:
45:
44:
35:
32:
955:. - Dank (
670:WP:MOSTIME
622:WP:MOSTIME
610:WP:SURNAME
401:Good catch
88:article.--
22:Assessment
867:I concur.
674:WT:MOSNUM
774:Comments
521:See also
349:Comments
253:right.--
50:Ian Rose
46:Promoted
20: |
949:Support
844:source.
653:time.--
595:Support
591:Comment
345:Support
326:Comment
478:Fixed.
470:Fixed.
454:Fixed.
281:Toddy1
240:Toddy1
200:Toddy1
112:Toddy1
936:These
809:Added
615:Done.
462:Done.
393:Done.
16:<
910:talk
896:talk
734:talk
719:talk
693:talk
659:talk
644:talk
630:talk
573:talk
559:talk
545:talk
510:talk
489:talk
431:talk
378:talk
299:talk
285:talk
259:talk
244:talk
218:talk
204:talk
185:ISBN
167:ISBN
149:talk
116:talk
94:talk
78:talk
54:talk
48:--
959:)
942:)
922:)
912:)
898:)
853:)
837:)
795:)
780:)
747:)
736:)
721:)
706:)
695:)
680:)
661:)
646:)
632:)
624:.
612:.
575:)
561:)
547:)
527:)
516:;
512:)
491:)
433:)
425:.
380:)
337:)
312:)
301:)
287:)
261:)
246:)
220:)
206:)
198:--
151:)
118:)
96:)
56:)
908:(
894:(
743:(
732:(
717:(
691:(
657:(
642:(
628:(
571:(
557:(
543:(
508:(
487:(
429:(
376:(
351::
333:(
297:(
283:(
257:(
242:(
216:(
202:(
192:.
174:.
147:(
114:(
92:(
80:)
76:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.