Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Neptune (1909)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2017 [1].

HMS Neptune (1909) edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships. Before the First World War, she served as the flagship of the Home Fleet and as a testbed for an experimental gunnery director. Like the rest of the British dreadnoughts, she had an uneventful war, only firing her guns during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Considered obsolescent, she was scrapped after the war. As always, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unexplained jargon. The article had a MilHist ACR earlier this year and I've recently made a few tweaks to add some extra links and clarify a few things so I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    • Done, although I don't want to extend it the full width of the page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Neptune(1909)_main_weapon.svg: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Own work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but based on what? What is the source of the relative placements shown? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ummm, photos and drawings, I expect. Including the plan from Brassey's given above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • "(47 mm (1.9 in))": ))
    • I'm a little puzzled by this; don't you like the doubled parentheses?
      • Thanks ... MOS doesn't mention this any more, so I have no objection. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsequently": The word is commonly used with at least 8 different meanings on Wikipedia; please pick a different word. (But "Subsequent" is probably fine.)
    • Here's the only subsequently in the article: sold for scrap in 1922 and subsequently broken up I don't think that subsequent will work here.
      • I meant that the one appearance of "Subsequent" later in the article isn't ambiguous, as far as I know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would "sold for scrap in 1922 and broken up" change the meaning? If so, what's the meaning of "subsequently"? I'm asking because I'm trying to come up with a complete list of all the things the word is used to mean. I'm hoping that when people see the full list, they'll agree that it's not reasonable to expect readers to know which meaning is intended. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this context I think the meaning is sufficiently obvious. I see only one possible meaning - that the vessel was broken up after it was sold for scrap. What other meaning could it have? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, so it means the same thing as "sold for scrap in 1922 and broken up", right? Wrong? - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Indy beetle edit

  • You display the BS abbreviation for Battle Squadron in the lede. I'd suggest removing the clarification from the lede and adding it the first time "Battle Squadron" shows up in the body under the "Construction and career" section.
  • "Neptune became a private ship on 10 March 1914". It might help to wikilink private ship, as unsatisfactory as that page is.
  • "The Royal Navy's Room 40 had intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic". Piping "intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic" to signals intelligence seems to push WP:EGG.
    • How would you suggest that it be handled?
I'd either remove the link all together or at least take "German radio traffic" out of it.
I'm going to change "traffic" to "signals" or "broadcast" to get rid of some jargon, but the link needs to stand to clarify what "intercepting a radio signal" means as I believe that not many readers are going to be puzzled by the concept of intercepting a signal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should wikilink the Action of 19 August 1916 somewhere in the "Subsequent activity" subsection.
    • I don't think that this article is long enough to warrant duplicating links between the lede and the main body, so those missing links that you noted are in the lede.
  • "The ship was present at Rosyth when the German fleet surrendered on 21 November and Neptune was reduced to reserve on 1 February 1919 at Rosyth." It might be better to say "Neptune was present at Rosyth when the German fleet surrendered on 21 November and was reduced to reserve there on 1 February 1919."
    • That is a better way of expressing things.

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Ref 15: source is a wiki. How does this meet the FA criterion of quality and reliability?
  • Otherwise, all sources are of appropriate quality and in consistent format. Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give a little more information? For example, how is editorial control exercised? As this is a wiki, what are the rules for editing the content – can anyone who logs in do this? Has the site been acknowledged or approved by a an institution such as a university or learned society? Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors must be approved by the editors-in-chief, who include two academic historians and the grandson of Earl Jellicoe, who published a book on the Battle of Jutland last year to commemorate its centennial. See for yourself [2]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ranger Steve edit

As you’re aware there’s a general consensus that FA ship articles should have a bit of context in them. This is doubly true here as there’s no class article to turn to for any details about the background and context of the ship’s design. As a result, after the lede the article opens fairly confusingly, with reference to a Naval Programme that isn’t explained. There should be some background to the naval arms race here; after all, before Neptune was even completed, the 1909 Naval crisis had occurred. Something on the evolving design of Dreadnoughts as context for Neptune’s innovations wouldn’t be out of place. I’d expect to see more substantial content here.

  • Added a para on the budget issues and a little more about the design. See if that's satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I've added a reference to the wider arms race to clarify why the German programme had accelerated. Ranger Steve Talk 13:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, although I've always thought that attributing the arms race as early to 1906 with Dreadnought's completion has seemed a bit of stretch to me considering that the Germans didn't respond with their own ships until a couple of years later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“These guns were installed in unshielded single mounts in the superstructure. Neptune was the first British dreadnought with this arrangement as resupply of ammunition in combat was very difficult, the guns could not be centrally controlled, and the exposed turret-roof installations used in the previous dreadnoughts were difficult to work when the main armament was in action.” I’m confused by this; did the unshielded mounts solve this problem? If so, how?

  • No, the problem with the older arrangement was their location, not being unshielded. I've rewritten most of the paragraph to explain things better. See if it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's much better, nice one. Ranger Steve Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th image appears to show torpedo nets that are absent in the first picture, but this defence isn’t mentioned anywhwere.

  • Reflects their coverage in the sources. Not even mentioned in Brown or Parkes; Burt only records the date of their removal and Friedman only mentions that they were ineffectual in protecting HMS Triumph in 1915. But I've added a link to the caption where they're visible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Ranger Steve Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“The ship was commissioned on 19 January 1911 for trials with an experimental gunnery director designed by Vice-Admiral Sir Percy Scott.” Is this the same one mentioned in the Fire Control section? Some clarification is needed as to this fact in either this or the Fire Control section. Also, it appears that she was commissioned purely for these trials from the current wording.

  • All this has been reworded to clarify things. It's not entirely clear if the ship was taken out of commission between 11 and 25 March. Burt just say "commissioned as flagship" in his entry for 25 March.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More context is also required in the career history as well. Her refit is mentioned and the changes are detailed in the preceeding section, but at the moment the sentence “the ship began a refit on 11 December.” stands out as unexplained. Why were the changes made, especially so soon after the outbreak of war? Additionally, when did the refit finish? Without a closing date I was unsure whether Neptune was present on the 23rd January in the following paragraph on first reading.

  • There are neither explanations nor dates for the refit in available sources. It might have been to add the additional turret rangefinders mentioned in the fire-control section, but that's strictly a supposition on my part. Jellicoe didn't mention that she was still in refit on 23 January, so I can only presume that Neptune was there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. No problem if there's nothing in sources to clarify dates of the end of the refit, but I'm not happy with the supposition that just because Jellicoe doesn't say Neptune wasn't there, that she therefore was. That's a synthesis from two different sources that neither supports. I think you should probably remove the events in which it is not categorically stated that Neptune was present. At the very least, reword it to say something like "although the fleet sortied on the 23rd, the next event Neptune is recorded as being present in was...". While we're here, you might want to look at the page numbers in ref 26. 21 to 12?Ranger Steve Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the typo in the page numbers. There's no synthesis here because I was pretty careful not to specify that Neptune participated in all of these patrols of the Grand Fleet until she is specifically mentioned; although a reader could infer that she did, which is exactly the implication that Jellicoe himself encourages in his book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly misleading. There's no evidence that Neptune was there so why mention it? Because it implies it - and you even admit a reader would infer that. Maybe not synth then, but the same problem applies; you're implying "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". That fails WP:NOR. Are you saying that there's no evidence that Neptune participated in numerous other Grand Fleet sorties mentioned in this article? Ranger Steve Talk 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jellicoe rarely enumerates which ship participated in the manoeuvers and training exercises unless something out of the norm occurs. All I can do is cross reference his account with Burt to eliminate those which conflict with the refit dates, as incomplete as they are; so, yes, I'm saying that there's generally nothing explicitly mentioning which ships of the Grand Fleet participated in any specific exercise or sortie. Annoyingly, the wonderful logbook site only posts the logbooks for Temeraire and most of the QE-class ships, so there's nothing out there that I've been able to find to positively says that she didn't spend the bulk of the early war swinging at her moorings. I've done the best that can be done to describe the ship's activities in the early war period without accessing her logbook and I don't think that what I've done falls under WP:NOR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate Naval Staff Monograph for the Battle of the Dogger Bank (Monograph No. 12: The Action of Dogger Bank–24th January 1915 (PDF). Naval Staff Monographs (Historical). Vol. III. The Naval Staff, Training and Staff Duties Division. 1921. pp. 209–226., p. 224) lists Neptune as part of the supporting forces on January 24, which backs up that Neptune had returned from refit by the time of Dogger Bank.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She was also present during the sweep that ended on 14 April - she is recorded in Monograph No. 29: Home Waters–Part IV.: From February to July 1915 (PDF). Naval Staff Monographs (Historical). Vol. XIII. The Naval Staff, Training and Staff Duties Division. 1925. p. 186. as sighting an (imaginary) German submarine on the return trip.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the refs, Nigel, I do have a habit of forgetting about the Naval Staff Monographs. I'll add those refs when I get a chance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the inclusion of Grand Fleet sorties as a thorough overview of events, but I'm afraid I cannot accept that a lack of evidence that Neptune wasn't there, is sufficient evidence that she was. Unless there are reliable sources confirming that Neptune was present in the Grand Fleet events described, it needs to be clearer that her presence is not confirmed. Nigel Ish's references above are great for confirming two events when they're added to the article, but I'm guessing from re-reading the rest of the narrative that there are numerous other sorties where it isn't clear if Neptune sailed. I'm afraid that I find these passages too ambiguous. There is a regular chopping and changing between the subject of the fleet, the Grand fleet, the ship and Neptune; it leaves an impression that Neptune is a subject in all of these events. But if that's not verifiable, I think it needs more clearly stating that it is only assumed.
I think that this is the best solution as it avoids extraneous wording and clearly spells things out. I put the note right after the first cite to Jellicoe, but feel free to suggest another location if you think it best. Also feel free to tweak the wording to your satisfaction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't have to be a blunt statement, but it needs incorporating somehow. For instance, a footnote explaining this would suffice, making clear that only the events where Neptune is named in the text are ones that she has been confirmed to be a part of. Alternatively, some soft wording can be used. For example, this paragraph could be amended with the inclusion of the bit in italics:
The Grand Fleet conducted sweeps into the central North Sea on 17–19 May and 29–31 May without encountering any German vessels. During 11–14 June the fleet practiced gunnery and battle exercises west of the Shetlands,[29] and trained off the Shetlands three days later. On 2–5 September, the fleet went on another cruise in the northern end of the North Sea, conducting gunnery drills, and spent the rest of the month performing numerous training exercises. Although Neptune most likely took part in all of these sorties, she is not mentioned by name in records until October, when the ship, together with the majority of the Grand Fleet, made another sweep into the North Sea from 13 to 15 October. Almost three weeks later, Neptune participated in another fleet training operation west of Orkney during 2–5 November.
PS, are you using British or American English in this article? British would be practised, rather than practiced. Ranger Steve Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, that had somehow been missed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Neptune was unsuccessfully attacked by the German submarine SM U-29” As U-29 was sunk herself on this occasion by Dreadnought, I think some more information on this event is warranted here.

Much better Ranger Steve Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“The Grand Fleet conducted sweeps into the central North Sea on 17–19 May and 29–31 May without encountering any German vessels. During 11–14 June the fleet conducted gunnery practice and battle exercises west of the Shetlands, and the Grand Fleet conducted training off the Shetlands beginning three days later. On 2–5 September, the fleet went on another cruise in the northern end of the North Sea and conducted gunnery drills. For the rest of the month, the Grand Fleet conducted numerous training exercises. The ship, together with the majority of the Grand Fleet, conducted another sweep into the North Sea from 13 to 15 October.” Is the unnamed fleet at the start of the second sentence the Grand Fleet? If so I’d suggest rewording this to avoid repetition and to clarify that the Grand Fleet was the subject of both events in the second sentence. I’d also hack out some other mentions of Grand Fleet in the rest of the paragraph as it appears four times.

  • <puzzled>Since no other fleet is mentioned anywhere else since the mention of the reorganization of the Home Fleet into the Grand Fleet, what other fleet could possibly be meant? Rereading the paragraph, the too-frequent usage of Grand Fleet are apparent, but the biggest offender, to my mind is "conducted". Consolidated a few sentences and tweaked the wording. See how it reads to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now, although there seems to be a typo with the word beginning? The issue was that grammatically, by referring to the fleet at the start of the sentence ("the fleet conducted..."), then saying "and the Grand Fleet.." introduces a second subject and implies that the first fleet referred to is not the same as the second. But it's fixed now, except that typo. Ranger Steve Talk 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admiralty is linked in the second to last paragraph, which is the second time they appear in the article. Given that they ordered the vessel I’d expect to see them mentioned somewhere previously.

Great Ranger Steve Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ship’s obsolescence is mentioned in the lede but not in the main body and is therefore unreferenced. Was she made obsolescent by age or improved technology?

Great Ranger Steve Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image captions: Two of these are a bit light given their assertions. In the lede image, why is Neptune at anchor and why is it before 1915? Similarly why is the 4th picture before 1913 (IWM says pre 1914 or 1911)? I’m guessing it’s because of an absence of later modifications, but that should be explained or referenced.

  • For the first photo, even though no anchor chain is visible, she lacks a bow wave in a calm sea and her funnel smoke shows that the wind is blowing from behind her. Ergo, she's stationary or moving very, very slowly, with the odds being that she's anchored. The photo uses the dating of the original source, although it's probably while she's on sea trials in late 1910-11 as her gunnery director is missing as are most of her torpedo booms and her superstructure and funnels appear to be in their original configuration. But I'm not going to go through all that as I'm not an expert on the ship.
  • The IWM dating was confusing as the pre-1914 probably refers to their category of photos taken before the start of the war. I changed the date to 1911, as per the other date on the IWM website, as the ship appears to be still in her original configuration.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think there's a touch of synthesis here. The source image caption for the first image doesn't mention being at anchor, and although I understand the points you're making about the bow wave and smoke, it's worth observing that there's no difference in those elements of the 1911 image, and there she's described as underway. Unless there's clear evidence that Neptune is at anchor, that suggestion should be removed. I'd say that it's fine to say something like "Neptune, before her 1914 refit" or something like that. Ranger Steve Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be synthesis if I'm using a process of deduction available to anyone with eyes to determine that the ship was mostly likely at anchor? And in the fourth photos, there is more of a bow wave visible, the funnel smoke is mostly vertical and the flags are mostly limp, but not entirely so. Ergo moving at a slow speed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are assuming, even when you say yourself above she could be moving. And I see no difference in the bow wave in either picture. If it was blindingly obvious it wouldn't be a problem, but I see no evidence that Neptune is at anchor and there's no reliable reference for it either. Therefore the caption is original research and misleading. Ranger Steve Talk 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty picayune, but whatever. Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you find it petty, but the requirements of FAC are quite clear: "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". Ranger Steve Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 17:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Ranger Steve do you plan to revisit, or have anything further to add? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm has not finished making additions in response to my queries yet, and I've now expanded on some of them. Ranger Steve Talk 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but I've been rather involved in the WiR The World Contest of late. I think that I've addressed Steve's concerns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few tiny changes, mainly moving the note to the first instance of the Grand Fleet being referred to without Neptune being specified. I feel this article has improved magnificently and am happy to switch to Support. Great work. Ranger Steve Talk 10:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Just a few things:

  • The first sentence in Background should probably be split.
  • I tried, but could only shorten it a little. See how it reads now. If you have any suggestions on phrasing, I'll happily take them under advisement.
  • "was that if the girders were damaged during combat, they could fall onto the turrets, immobilising them." Does "they" mean the girders or the boats?
  • Girders is the immediately prior noun.
  • "Notably, the exposed guns were difficult to work when the main armament was in action as was replenishing their ammunition. Furthermore, the guns could not be centrally controlled to coordinate fire at the most dangerous targets" does this refer to Neptune or to earlier ships?
  • Earlier ones, as is spelled out in the prior sentence.
  • "In the vicinity of the boiler rooms, the compartments between them were used as coal bunkers." Why not say "The compartments between the boiler rooms were used as coal bunkers."?
  • Much better.
  • "Two weeks later, Neptune relieved Dreadnought as the flagship of the Home Fleet and of the 1st Division on 25 March" I would cut the "Two weeks later,"
  • It is rather redundant, isn't it?
A good read.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - my concerns were addressed at the Milhist ACR. Excellent work as usual, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_Neptune_(1909)/archive1&oldid=815155022"