Talk:HMS Glorious

Survivors

I edited this bit for tidyness, but the original article was ambiguous as to whether there were 45 survivors from the Glorious altogether, or from the three RN vessels altogether, or from the RAF complement of Glorious. If anyone knows and wishes to tidy up... Steve Roberts 23:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

(comment) The number of survivors is not easy to establish simply because some may have survived a few days, some a few weeks, so whether or not they are counted is a matter of opinion.

Battle

Does her final battle have a name? Does it deserve its own article? More men died here than in the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Drutt (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it probably does deserve its own article. Of course, what to call it is a bit problematic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The article leaves obvious questions unanswered about the Battle. When sighting the enemy, any naval ship sends a sighting report, for obvious reasons. Was one sent? and if so, what happened? Also, the rather large number of casualties and the fact that no search was carried out is perhaps worthy of a mention. Information on this aspect from eyewitnesses was included in this article but has been deleted for some reason.  :) Historikeren (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Glorious sent contact reports on the wrong frequencies so that only Devonshire and the Germans heard her. The former was not allowed to transmit because she was carrying the Norwegian Royal Family to Britain. I didn't cover this because it's more relevant to the battle than the ship itself. Once I get the book on the carrier I'll have something useful enough to use as a source for the fate of the survivors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Glorious/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Haus^Talk 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Well written, illustrated, cited, and a very nice job of WP:BTW. I'm sure it will pass in short order. Some quibbles I'd like to bring up for discussion before signing off on the article:

Lede

• "recalled home" seems redundant. Consider recalled or called home?
  • Fixed
• Furious with -> Furious, which had?
  • Indeed
• recalled home again
  • I only saw this once.
    • My bad.
• Last sentence of lede uses "she" twice in quick succession. Consider mixing it up a bit?
  • Done

Genesis

• Genesis seems a little melodramatic. Is there precedent for it? Construction maybe?
  • Renamed
• "To obtain ships...he settled on ships." Good candidate for rewording.
  • Done
• I wonder if draught is "maximum draught" or equiv. "deep draught"? If the reference doesn't specify, I'll strike this comment.
  • What exact usage are you referring to?
    • In retrospect, my concern is a side effect of another ship GA review I did recently. Draft, by itself means deep or maximum draft, so it's unambiguous. As long as this matches what Roberts said, it's fine.

Conversion

• Link capital ship?
  • Done.
• Link starboard?
  • Done

Sinking

• I understand Guy D'Oyly-Hughes was the ship's captain. Do you know his rank at the time? Given that the air captain was a CDR, it seems likely he was a CAPT at the time.
  • His rank, although unlinked, was given in the first sentence of this section.
    • The confusion, of course, is between the position captain ("the old man") and the rank captain. Right now, with the help of the wikilink, the text says his rank was CAPT but doesn't explicitly say he was the captain of the ship.
      • note on rank: In the Royal Navy all capital ships have a commanding officer with the rank of Captain. The senior aviator in aircraft carriers (J.B. Heath in this case) is Commander (Flying) with the rank of Commander. Admirals when on board 'fly their flag' in a particular ship, the Flagship, of which the commanding officer is the Flag Captain, and do not interfere in the running of the ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I tweaked this sentence a bit. Haus^Talk 14:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Why do we believe this is the last picture? Is this supported by a RS?
  • I'm not aware of any later photos, but I can't source it off-hand. I've reworded the caption.
• Link court martial?
  • Done
• Link engine room?
  • And Done

External links

• These aren't as descriptive as those for the Lion or Courageous class articles. Can you take another whack at them? I'll look at them again tomorrow and see if I can say something more concrete about them.
  • These are fine now. Haus^Talk 14:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Other

• I've recently started using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, it's worth a look, but just a suggestion.
• Is there a citation for 32kts/30kts in the infobox? I don't see it mentioned in the text.

• • You're right; I've added that info to the main body.
• The second general characteristics infobox links (o/a), and it's omitted in the first.
  • Fixed.

Cheers, Haus^Talk 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, there are plenty more if you feel up to it! :-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure — it's almost there. When the coffee reaches the brain, I'll take another look at the external links. Cheers. Haus^Talk 12:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Pass. Well done, Haus^Talk 14:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Extra references

My addition of these two has just been reverted by User:Jim Sweeney. Perhaps I added them in the wrong place or wrong format, but it seems to me that one or both should be referenced in the article:

• "The Loss of HMS Glorious", An Analysis of the Action, Vernon W. Howland Captain, RCN (Retd.)
• Carrier Glorious: The Life and Death of an Aircraft Carrier, Cassell Military Paperbacks, John Winton

Snori (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Howland article already is cited. Carrier Glorious should be relegated to a Further reading section as it's not cited in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 'Carrier Glorious' is cited in at least three places in the article :) Historikeren (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Grave of Lt Grey

The grave of Lt Grey of HMS Glorious is in the malbork Commonwealth War Cemetery in Poland : http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/2194035/GREY,%20ROBIN%20HAMILTON%20GERRARD (46.205.163.231 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Glorious. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010522092000/http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm to http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010522092000/http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm to http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Glorious. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024151709/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.etherington/articles/level1/loss_of_hms_glorious.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.etherington/articles/level1/loss_of_hms_glorious.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There Are Only Two 'Courageous'-Class Light Battle Cruisers

Hey!

Although Furious was also a Light Battle Cruiser, she was not a member of the Courageous-Class. She might be said to be a near-sister or cousin, but she is not a member of the class, nor was she considered as such contemporaneously.

There are only two members of the Courageous-Class, Courageous and Glorious. Furious, their immediate predecessor, belongs to her own class.

KAH Ranya (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)