Talk:HMS Moorsom (1914)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 02:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Prelim

• Duplicated links: destroyer, British Admiralty, Grand Fleet, HMS Nimrod (1915)
  • Fixed.
• No edit wars
• Earwig reports no copyvio
• Image correctly licensed - what pretty ships they were too!

Lede and infobox

• "HMS Moorsom was an Admiralty M-class destroyer"
  • Fixed.
• "with the Royal Navy" using "with" sounds like she was attached to the RN rather than actually a part of it. Suggest "in the..."
  • Done.
• "after the Admiral of the name" well name him!
  • Done.
• "as part of flotillas throughout the war" I realise you expand on this in the main text, but this is pretty useless without elaboration. Suggest just saying "joined the Grand Fleet, serving in it throughout the war"
  • Done.
• "recieving hits from the German High Seas Fleet" to me this sounds like she was shot at by the entire fleet! Suggest "receiving hits from a battleship of the German High Seas Fleet" ("receiving" is spelled wrong here too)
  • Done.
• "in May 1917, April and May 1918." > "in May 1917, and April and May 1918."
  • Amended and updated with the new information in the main text.
• "After the Armistice that ended the war" this is overlinked, just link "Armistice"
  • Done.
• The out of service date of 31 November 1921 is in the infobox and lede but not in main text, thus not referenced
  • That is a copy error.
• Main text says was sold on 8 November while lede says 31 November
  • Again, the same error.

Design and development

• "1913–14 Naval Programme" full stop required after this. No link, so think would be good if you could expand on what the programme entailed here
  • I have added a little bit to explain the context.
• Was the speed the only improvement?
  • It was the main improvement. I have added a bit to this which I hope helps.
• "L-class destroyer destroyers"
  • Fixed.
• Link knots
  • I have added a previous mention.
• I believe QF stands for quick fire/quick firing? Suggest saying that instead of using the acronym
  • QF was the Royal Navy designation.
• Link British 21 inch torpedo
  • Done.
• " Initially, carrying no fire-control system," > "Initially the ship carried no fire-control system, but..."?
  • Done.
• Briefly expand on what the Dumaresq was
  • Done.

Construction and career

• "The vessel started trials..." suggest replacing "vessel" with "Moorsom" so that two sentences in a row don't begin with "the vessel"
  • Done.
• "was deployed as part of the Grand Fleet" can you say how long after the 1 February trials this was?
  • There is no information in the sources, but I have moved the paragraph around so it flows better.
• Link sortie
  • Done.
• "One of the number" > "One of their number"
  • Done.
• If Moorsom had previously been transferred to the Harwich Force, it might be useful to explain how she came to be still serving with the Grand Fleet at Jutland?
  • I have clarified that.
• "attached to the Thirteenth Destroyer Flotilla, along with sister ship Morris, under the light cruiser Champion." why note this one sister ship in the flotilla and then the flotilla leader? It half sounds like this was the entire flotilla! Suggest something like "attached to the Thirteenth Destroyer Flotilla, where she served in its 2nd Division alongside her sister ship Morris, under the control of the light cruiser Champion?
  • Clarified.
• "The vessel became separated" add "...from her flotilla" and remove the first comma in this sentence
  • Done.
• "The destroyer was then forced" > "Moorsom was forced" to avoid repetition of "the destroyer"
  • Done.
• "5.9 inches"
  • Done.
• Suggest noting that Moorsom did not return to the battle, which might sound obvious but I think would be useful in bringing the Jutland saga to a close
  • Done.
• "in seconded"
  • Done.
• "seconded to the Grand Fleet" for only one day? Can you say why this incredibly brief secondment took place?
  • The sources do not go into detail.
• "the ship had returned to Dover." you have not mentioned Dover before this. I assume it was a location at which she served in the Harwich Force, but this should be confirmed
  • Done.
• "once again escorted..." this sentence currently reads like the previous escort mission also happened to be 500 mines 20 nm west of Borkum. If this wasn't the case I suggest changing it to "Moorsom once again escorted Princess Margaret on a mission, this time to lay..."
  • Done.
• "Moorsum was one of eight destroyers of the Tenth Flotilla" I was under the impression from the article that Moorsom had left the Tenth in October 1915, please clarify her unit movements
  • Clarified.
• Link "destroyer leader" to flotilla leader?
  • Done.
• "Moorsum" sp
  • Done.
• Move Dover Patrol link to first mention
  • Done.
• Link Flanders
  • Done.
• "On 27 January" was this the day she joined the ad hoc flotilla, or should it be "by 27 January"?
  • Fixed.
• "were to patrol" > "that was to patrol..."
  • Done.
• Link refit
  • Done.
• "newly formed Dover Patrol" this sounds like the Patrol was only just formed, but you had Moorsom operating with it a month earlier!
  • It was the composition that had changed. I have changed the wording, so hopefully this is now clearer.
• "The operation was deemed a success." why? not a huge point but I think a little elaboration would be nice here
  • Good point.
• "subsequent attack on Zeebrugge by monitors on 24 April 1918" the raid you linked to happened on 23 April
  • Fixed.
• "monitors,that" > "monitors that"
  • Done.
• "once again including" > "again included"
  • Done.
• "did not meet the expectations of the Admiralty", again I don't think it would be going too far to say why
  • I have added a small explanation.
• "or loss of any British vessel." > "or the loss..."
  • Done.
• "After the armistice," a little bit of a skip in time here. Are you able to note whether she did anything after the Ostend raid but before the armistice?
  • There is no information for those four months.
• "was reduced" elaborate on what the reduction of a ship actually meant
  • Expanded.
• Per comment in lede section, the selling dates do not match
  • Fixed.

Pennant numbers

• Nothing necessarily wrong here but I don't see why the table is needed. This information could easily be added to the main text.
  • True, but it seems a convention.

References

• References look good. Monograph No. 35 is not referenced in the main text
  • Oops. The relevant fact is now included.
• Suggest The Technical History source be converted into sfn ref like others
  • Done.

@Simongraham: That's all I have for now. Will await your replies. I realise this is quite a lot, so feel free to challenge me where necessary! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you for a very thorough review. I have made amendments. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with your edits. Just a few minor queries remain:

• "one of the last..." I think I know what you're saying here, but it could be better explained what "one of the last" things the programme was, and perhaps what this meant for the design as well
  • I have clarified this.
• "had been transferred to the Harwich Force based in ." I think you're missing something here!
  • Yes. I have removed the incomplete clause.
• "along with her sister ship..."
  • Reworded.
• "Grand Fleet∂" ?!
  • Removed.
• Why does the lede mention Erebus and Terror but not the other monitors? I understand that naming all of them would be a bit much for the lede, but I don't see the thought process behind just citing these two either.
  • These were the two larger monitors and the only ones used at all the bombardments.

@Simongraham: If there's anything at all left after this it will be very minor indeed. Will await your replies. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you. These are also done. simongraham (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)