Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Agincourt (1913)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HMS Agincourt (1913) edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk), The ed17 (talk)


This ship had an interesting history; ordered by Brazil, sold to Turkey and seized by the British upon the outbreak of World War I. Her only real combat was the Battle of Jutland and she was scrapped after the end of the war when the Brazilians refused to buy her back. Her seven twin-gun turrets remains the largest number of main gun turrets ever afloat. This is a co-nomination with The ed17 (talk)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: just a style/presentation review from me at this stage (I've also made a few tweaks for English variation, etc.; please check that you are happy with these):

  • no dab links, ext links all worked;
  • images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in: [1];
  • this seems inconsistent: "She was placed in reserve at Rosyth in March 1919" (in body of article) v. "Decommissioned: April 1921" (infobox);
    • Reworded.
  • the duplicate link checker tool reports a number of duplicate links: caliber (artillery), Grand Fleet, Armstrong Whitworth, Battle of Jutland,
    • Deleted.
  • in the Bibliography: "The Brazilian Dreadnoughts, 1904-1914". I wonder if the date should have an endash for consistency;
    • I'll let Ed sweat that one.
      • I changed it. It makes sense to be internally consistent. The only weird thing is I just realized copy/pasting that title with the endash vs. hyphen into Google brings up different results. Not so good, but I don't know if I should say that's our fault or theirs. Hmm. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the format of the External links might possibly be tidied up slightly. Compare the first link with the third, they are slightly inconsistent. I'd suggest also replacing the hyphen with an endash or a colon. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I missed this one last time: citation # 33 "Vanterpool, p. 140": I couldn’t seem to find the full bibliographic details for this in the Bibliography. AustralianRupert (talk)
  • I can't vouch for the content, sorry as it is not an area that I'm familiar with. I will leave it to SMEs to determine if it is comprehensive (no action required);
  • looks well referenced and prose seemed okay to me (no action required);
  • I believe that the images are correctly licenced, but who knows these days (no action required);
  • spot checks of the online sources didn’t reveal any issues with close paraphrasing that I could see (no action required);
  • possible issue: the infobox appears to contain some information that isn’t included elsewhere in the article (sorry if I missed it), e.g. the size of the ship’s crew and the estimated cost. As such, these figures should probably have citations placed beside them in the infobox or, ideally, worked into the prose. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Just having a look through now, but this caught my eye in the lead:

  • "Agincourt held the distinction of mounting more heavy guns (fourteen) and more turrets (seven) than any other battleship ever constructed, which was a response to the Brazilians' requirement for an especially impressive design." The distinctions, dare I say it, don't appear to be referenced, nor for that matter, appear elsewhere in the article. Superb had sixteen 10-inch guns and as Parkes says (p. 272.) "Had the largest battery of one-calibre big guns ever mounted in any British battleship."

Will continue reading through as I understand you need more reviewers to pass this. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Always happy to have more reviewers! Yes, we do need to cite it somewhere in the main body and clarify that the distinction applies to dreadnought battleships, not ironclads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This meant that the crew would be operating in 3 feet. By this I assume you mean just the crew working in the torpedo section of the ship?
  • A high-angle rangefinder was added to the spotting top in 1918. Suggest - A high-angle rangefinder was also added to the spotting top in 1918.
  • Navy had been pro-Britain—the Army having been pro-German. Was their any reason as too why the navy was pro British whilst the army was pro German?
  • opened fire on a German battlecruiser. I'm assuming the sources don't say which battlecruiser?
  • Rosyth. Suggest - a wiki-link. Thurgate (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified, added, deleting that bit, no BC specified, and linked. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Prose-wise, completed my usual copyedit -- it could probably do with another going-over before FAC, but I think it's fine for A-Class. N.B. I wouldn't be linking countries unless you're speaking of them in historical forms, but that's a fairly minor point.
  • Structure and level of detail look okay, images and references likewise -- no spotcheck of sources, I'm trusting you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • There's a big problem in the lead: it makes no reference to the fact that the ship was built in the UK. The average reader is going to say "wait, it's a Brazilian ship purchased by the Ottomans - how exactly is Britain involved?"
      • Done.
    • You might also consider summarizing her actions at Jutland briefly, considering it was her only engagement.
      • I'll have to piece it together.
    • This caught my eye: "the Reshadiye in the seizure section - it doesn't seem as though you've used the definite article for other ships' names.
      • Fixed.
    • Is the pro-German leanings of the Army really relevant? It doesn't corroborate the sentence its in (which is to say that there was significant pro-British sentiment in the Ottoman Empire) - it seems to contradict it.
      • Agreed and deleted.
    • In the sentence about Agincourt evading two torpedoes, you might want to include that Marlborough was hit, as the current reference to torpedo damage is not explained.
      • Excellent idea.
    • The attempted German raid on the Scandinavian convoy was on 23 April, not March.
    • Link Washington Naval Treaty in the Service section. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Other events probably influenced them as well, such as the November 1910 Revolt of the Lash, payments on loans taken out for the dreadnoughts, and a worsening economy had led to high government debt compounded by budget deficits.": A word is missing somewhere.
  • "4crh": Is there another description that works?
  • 'Monday', 'Thursday', etc.: "Monday", "Thursday", etc.
  • "1917–18": "1917 or 1918", or "1917 and 1918".
  • "Modifications for the Royal Navy": The section title seems to be relevant only to the first two sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMS_Agincourt_(1913)&oldid=1075713975"