Talk:HMS Howe (32)

Class

Removed "class=start" to prompt independent reappraisal. Folks at 137 (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've assessed it back as Start class and filled in the B-class checklist (which will bump the WP:SHIPS assessment up to "C"). I gave the article a copyedit, and have the following observations:

• Could use a "Design" section (possibly with an "Armament" subsection, or with the content included), which would summarise the "Development", "Armour", and "Armament" sections of King George V class battleship (1939) and note any Howe-specific differences...have a look at HMAS Sydney (D48)#Design for an example.
• The article could use an increase in detail, particularly in "Operational history". I'm not sure that the article meets the "Coverage and accuracy (B2)" criteria for B-class, but will concede that its a decent overview for its size, and others may think it passes (if they do, no worries).
• I've scattered a few {{clarify}} and {{fact}} tags through the article...filling those in should make it meet the "Referencing (B1)" criteria. The clarify tags contain a note indicating what needs to be clarified.
• I think the Mason website is overused... its alright for the article's current level, (I'm guessing its the first/easiest source you've found so far) but if you are aiming towards A/FA, reducing your reliance on this and diversifying the sources used will be the way to go. Mason mentions a few works that go into some of his points in more detail, so they may be worth checking out.
• There's nothing ever wrong with more images, particularly as the fair-use infobox image should preferably be replaced with a free-use alternative. Have a look at the Imperial War Museum collections, or as a second resort, the Australian War Memorial collections (which may have some useful photos from her BPF days). If you end up with too many images, you can always start a category or gallery at Commons.

Hope this all helps. -- saberwyn 12:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On consideration (and particularly following your additions), I've chanegd m mind and am now satisfied that this meets B class. -- saberwyn 07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for c-class on the quality scale

• There are no references for the lead section.
  • Ref are not needed in the lead as they are already in the article
• From "In 1943, however, she was moved to Gibraltar with King George V to take part in Operation Husky, the allied invasion of Sicily" onwards within the Operational history has no references yet the section covers a number of different operations.
  • Oops, nice catch.

Just a minor note not related to assessment but can you put the external title into a Level 1 title like how "References" is styled.

Changed per your suggestion.

Gavbadger (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking over the article and could you please reassess it. Thurgate (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

For the operational history section and the quote pointed i said about, you have put in three reference at the end altogether do all three references the different operations or does one references relate to one operation and another reference related to a different operation and so on? Gavbadger (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The quotes all overlap each other so it is easier and cleaner to just put them at the end of the paragraph. Thurgate (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, B class, Well Done. Gavbadger (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Howe (32)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 10:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not familiar with this ship at all so hope to learn, as well as review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Toolbox check

• Two dablinks found:
  • David Beatty
    • Fixed
  • Miyako
    • Fixed
• No external link issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Structure/prose/detail

• Lead:
  • Need to decide whether you're going to say "Second World War" or "World War II" -- you use both, the first here and the second later in the article; also link the first occurrence -- at the moment you link "World War II", even though it appears after "Second World War".
    • Fixed.
  • You say here she was "completed" on 31 March 1941 but later you say it was 20 August 1942 -- which is it? I also don't understand the bit about the "building" time being extended - do you mean her fitout took longer than expected?
    • See how you like the changes I have made.
• Construction:
  • Starts too suddenly -- I think you need to ease us in a bit here by mentioning the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty and its implications up front, and then talk about the 1930 Treaty of London and its implications.
    • Hmm, I was planning on explaining that in more detail in the parent article.
      • I'm not after a major change, more something along the lines of "The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty limited [or "banned", whichever is correct] battleship construction by Britain [perhaps add the other nations affected]. The 1930 Treaty of London extended this ban (or "limitation"), and by 31 December 1936 it was realised that the Royal Navy was badly short of modern battleships." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Changed see how you like it now.
          • Tweaked a bit for readability; let me know if I've altered meaning inadvertently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
            • No your changes look perfect. Thurgate (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't suppose we know why the name changed from Beatty to Howe?
    • I'll double check my sources but I didn't remember seeing anything that explained the change, however, this is the norm when ships are renamed to be honest (in my limited experience anyway)
• Operational history: "...any possible break-out by German heavy ships from their bases in the fjords" -- Um, which fjords exactly? At the very least name the country for the sake of the uninitiated, and probably link "fjords" too.
  • Removed the fjords bit as I can not find it in my sources and it is not needed.
• Disposal: This is a short-short section and repeats some of what's under Post war anyway -- I'd suggest merging this info with Post war and eliminating the little section entirely.
  • Removed per your suggestion.

References/citations/spotcheck

• Seems to be a "Please check ISBN" message from a bot in your bibliography...
  • Fixed
• Spotcheck -- have to assume good faith re. most sources as they're books but checked the two online refs:
  • FN04 (Mason) generally supports the info cited but doesn't seem to state explicitly that Howe was the last of the KGV class.
    • Replaced with Roberts and Raven
  • FN26 (BBC) generally supports the info cited but I couldn't see any mention about the ship being broken up by 1961.
    • Removed that ref along with that section.
      • Well I was suggesting eliminating the small section, yes, but then moving the supported info from that section into the Post war section -- what I mean is leave everything as it is now but add "In 2012, it was reported that parts from one of the gun turrets may still exist, having been re-used as a turntable at Dounreay nuclear laboratory." to the end of Post war (and of course add the BBC reference back). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Fixed.

Supporting materials

• Infobox:
  • I'd normally expect a foreign-language motto to be in italics, with the English translation in normal font but with quote marks.
    • Changed per your suggestion
  • Is it standard to capitalise colours for the Badge description?
    • Removed capitalization
  • I don't think it makes sense to repeat the "Class and type" bit in the General characteristics section.
    • It is normal pratice for ship articles (By that I mean I just copied how Sturm and Parsec complete an infobox)
      • Well I'm not out to alter ship article standards, so fair enough... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd normally expect "belt" (in "Main Belt") to be in lower case.
    • Fixed
• Image licences all check out.

Summary -- Generally looks good, let me know about the above points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for doing the review and I'll sort out the two remaining issues tomorrow. Thanks. Thurgate (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Apart from that one thing re. the 2012 find, all your changes so far look fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Are their any other issues you can think of? Thanks. Thurgate (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Only this note about armament using newsreel footage as opposed to a book source. I'm afraid that an editor's interpretation of what a film shows doesn't stack up as a reliable source against a book. That said, if Chesneau (1980) says she carried UP launchers and none of the other sources list those among her armament, then the weight of evidence is that she didn't have them and you should just drop any mention of them and use the other sources instead of Chesneau (1980). If you really want to point out a supposed error in Chesneau, contrast it with other book sources, not a newsreel -- as it is, the note is problematic from a WP guideline perspective in terms of verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Removed and fixed. Thanks for reviewing the article. Thurgate (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Tks for that Thurgate (and Damwiki) -- pls just see one last point above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Okay, happy to pass as GA now, tks for your efforts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Howe's combat career.

Here's a very good summary: [1] Howe did provide distant cover to a number of Arctic convoys in an attempt to thwart or destroy German surface raiders, but certainly not nearly her entire career.