Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS New Zealand (1911)
- 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.
Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HMS New Zealand (1911)
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - it's been a while since I did one of these, but I need a break from researching the Avro Lancaster for work.
- Infobox and Lead
- You convert the width of the torpedo tubes, but not of any of the other guns in the infobox. My gut says that both metric and imperial should be in there.
- I shouldn't have done that since they were all linked. All of those conversions have been removed; readers can click on the link if they want to know metric equivalents.
- Could the range figure in the infobox have a citation?
- Added in the main body.
- During 1913, New Zealand was sent on a ten-month tour of the Dominions, with an emphasis on the visit to her namesake nation. - "The Dominions" is a pretty general term (it covered 20% of the world's populace at the time); if the number is <5, could it be specified which dominions the vessel visited?
- I'm going to have to check into more detailed sources. I do know that she visited South Africa among the others.
- I've rewritten it to just mention South Africa.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have to check into more detailed sources. I do know that she visited South Africa among the others.
- could it be mentioned where "China Station" was based? (My money's on Singapore or Hong Kong. Am I right?)
- I don't know where it was headquartered during this time. Singapore was pretty undeveloped at this time.
- You convert the width of the torpedo tubes, but not of any of the other guns in the infobox. My gut says that both metric and imperial should be in there.
- Infobox and Lead
- China station linked Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When she was back in British waters, did she operate as part of a NZ Squadron (in a fashion similar to RCAF Squadrons operating under RAF Bomber Command) or was she the sole NZ ship stationed in the British isles?
- The RNZN had not yet been formed during WWI so she certainly wasn't assigned to a NZ Squadron because such did not exist. She was, for the duration of her existence, a ship of the Royal Navy.
- When she was back in British waters, did she operate as part of a NZ Squadron (in a fashion similar to RCAF Squadrons operating under RAF Bomber Command) or was she the sole NZ ship stationed in the British isles?
- Design
- Given that they had obtained Von Der Tann's design specs when Australia and New Zealand started, were modifications made to the design of these two battlecruisers? If not, why?
- Unknown, but probably because of cost. The Lion class was the real response to the Von der Tann/Moltke-class BCs.
- I presume the purpose of the aircraft was to act as recon and fire spotters, but this should probably be mentioned in the prose.
- I can source that the fighters were for anti-Zeppelin duties, but I'm not sure about the two seaters. I'll have to dig around for their intended functions. Thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can source that the fighters were for anti-Zeppelin duties, but I'm not sure about the two seaters. I'll have to dig around for their intended functions. Thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that they had obtained Von Der Tann's design specs when Australia and New Zealand started, were modifications made to the design of these two battlecruisers? If not, why?
- That's all for now. More later. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 20:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More since it popped up on my watchlist and I'm feeling guitly about not finishing this earlier.
- Acquisition
- Perhaps a bit more analysis as to why the British RN changed their position in terms of dominion defence being centralized would be in order. I recognize that it's fairly tangential, but even just a quick blurb as to why the decision was made (my personal guess is it had to do with the German Navy becoming more powerful and thus the RN needing more ships in Scapa to counter them. Am I somewhere near the mark?)
- Probably, but that's getting way afield from a ship article.
- Perhaps a bit more analysis as to why the British RN changed their position in terms of dominion defence being centralized would be in order. I recognize that it's fairly tangential, but even just a quick blurb as to why the decision was made (my personal guess is it had to do with the German Navy becoming more powerful and thus the RN needing more ships in Scapa to counter them. Am I somewhere near the mark?)
- In Service: Heligoland, Scarbourough, Dogger Bank
- Which ships were in the 1st and 2nd BCS when New Zealand joined?
- <Puzzled> Why does it matter?
- Was Ariadne a British or German cruiser? The way it's worded right now, it's not exactly clear.
- Added prefixes to the German cruisers. Is that clear enough?
- She was being overhauled by New Zealand when Beatty received messages that Scarborough was being shelled at 9:00 a.m.. It isn't very clear what you mean by "overhauled". Could another word possibly be used?
- It's linked.
- Beatty ordered Indomitable to attack her, but the combination of a signalling error by Beatty's flag lieutenant and heavy damage to Beatty's flagship Lion, which had knocked out her radio and caused enough smoke to obscure her signal halyards, caused the rest of the British battlecruisers, temporarily under the command of Rear-Admiral Sir Gordon Moore in New Zealand, to think that that signal applied to them. - this is a very long and convoluted sentence. Can it be shortened?
- I'm not seeing a way, but how would you rephrase it?
- Which ships were in the 1st and 2nd BCS when New Zealand joined?
- Jutland
- New Zealand was engaged by the battleship Prinzregent Luitpold from 5:08 p.m., during the 'Run to the North', but she was not hit, although she was straddled several times.[42] - maybe change the last part to "she was straddled several times, but not hit".
- I'd missed this on my last pass, but I've reworded it. See how it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- New Zealand was engaged by the battleship Prinzregent Luitpold from 5:08 p.m., during the 'Run to the North', but she was not hit, although she was straddled several times.[42] - maybe change the last part to "she was straddled several times, but not hit".
- Post-Jutland
- Maybe explain what a "Harwich Force" was.
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe explain what a "Harwich Force" was.
- Acquisition
- Other than that. Excellent article. Will be happy to support when these are fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the following criteria, as commented:
- A1) Citations. I'd prefer the first paragraph to have a ref in the middle of it ("As a result, the Indefatigable class was not a significant improvement on the Invincible design; the ships were smaller and not as well protected as the contemporary German battlecruiser SMS Von der Tann and subsequent German designs." is opinion-ish statement, for example) perhaps split the ref page-by-page. However, as I'm sure someone would point out, it's not a requirement.
- The cite at the end covers the entire paragraph. That's my language, Roberts' idea.
- Is "Greenwich" the London/UK one (Conway Publishing)? If so, might be best to say so, given that Greenwich is not the best known of places here.
- Good idea, done.
- A2) Coverage. Seems to be really good, I can't think of any questions I'm really left with. As far as I can see, no unnecessary detail or bias. However, I have a small concern: "Jutland: The German Perspective: A New View of the Great Battle" sounds like it might have a point-of-view issue. If you've got the book in front of you, could you just appraise it for this? If you can, perhaps another citation for things like "The setting sun blinded the German gunners" since that could be construed as an 'excuse' (if you see what I mean).
- You're right to be concerned, but Tarrant correlates pretty well with British sources on things like light conditions and visibility.
- A3) I think the lead is brief, but satisfactory. Layout/headings are all fine.
Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You note that the ship was hit once during the Run to the South, but there are no details. Campbell, p. 48 gives the information on the hit. Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, I'd overlooked that. Page 76 gives the really detailed info on the hit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, I looked for that but must have skimmed over it. That was my only real issue, so moving to support. It should probably mention that the hit came from Von der Tann though. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, I looked for that but must have skimmed over it. That was my only real issue, so moving to support. It should probably mention that the hit came from Von der Tann though. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a very solid article which I think meets the A class criteria. I do have some suggestions though:
- It seems a bit simplistic to say that "The disarmament provisions of the Washington Naval Treaty required the destruction of New Zealand as part of Britain's tonnage limit, and she was sold for scrap in 1922." given that the RN considered her obsolete and had no use for ships armed with 12-inch guns even if the treaty hadn't existed (see the discussion of this at HMAS Australia (1911)#Decommissioning and fate)
- Done.
- "When the tour concluded, New Zealand was originally to remain in the Pacific region, the Admiralty requested that she instead return to the United Kingdom." - reads a bit awkwardly and should probably be split into two sentences.
- Done.
- "New Zealand was relieved by HMAS Australia as flagship of the 2nd BCS on 22 February 1915" - this is a bit confusing - did New Zealand move into reserve or undertake a major refit at this time? The normal terminology is that whoever the commander of the squadron was shifted their command (or 'flag') to the other ship. The same applies to "relieving HMS Indefatigable as flagship" and "On 9 June, Australia returned from the dockyard and relieved New Zealand as flagship."
- I've seen it done both ways. Ship oriented books tend to talk about the ship becoming flagships while more general histories tend to refer to admirals shifting their flags. Australia might have become the new flagship when Gordon Moore left the squadron, but I can't be sure.
- Can anything be said about the display of parts of the ship in New Zealand? Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't even confirm that her 4-inch guns are still on display outside the Auckland War Memorial Museum. I know that most of those guns were used after she was scrapped for coastal defence, and I even know where, but the source isn't RS. If you've know of anything that meets RS criteria let me know and I'll add it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems a bit simplistic to say that "The disarmament provisions of the Washington Naval Treaty required the destruction of New Zealand as part of Britain's tonnage limit, and she was sold for scrap in 1922." given that the RN considered her obsolete and had no use for ships armed with 12-inch guns even if the treaty hadn't existed (see the discussion of this at HMAS Australia (1911)#Decommissioning and fate)
Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, HMS_New_Zealand_(1911)#Raid on Scarborough. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "was attributed": it's not weaselly at all to say that something was thought about a ship if the thought clearly comes from the relevant part of the chain of command, but that's not the case here.
- I'm not sure what your argument is here. The crew attributed the luck to the piupiu.
- Yes, but you don't say it was the crew, you say "was attributed". - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, fixed.
- Yes, but you don't say it was the crew, you say "was attributed". - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what your argument is here. The crew attributed the luck to the piupiu.
- "QF 3 inch 20 cwt (76 mm)" Understood that there's a problem here, because we're not inserting conversions inside links, and someone may ask for the conversion anyway. Still, I think this probably isn't the best solution; some readers, not knowing what "20 cwt" is (I know there's a link but most people don't click), will think that the 76 mm is a conversion for 20 cwt.
- Done.
- If this is headed to FAC, you'll want to fix the single quotes (although 'A', etc., is fine).
- In general, what do you refer to?
- 'Fleet Units', for instance. I fixed 'lucky ship'. - Dank (push to talk)
- Fixed that one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Fleet Units', for instance. I fixed 'lucky ship'. - Dank (push to talk)
- In general, what do you refer to?
- Something's missing here: 'When the tour concluded, New Zealand was originally to remain in the Pacific region, the Admiralty requested that she instead return to the United Kingdom." - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2011 (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_New_Zealand_(1911)&oldid=444984339"