Talk:Peter Hammersley

Peter Hammersley has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 16, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peter Hammersley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / Maritime / British / European / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

A fact from Peter Hammersley appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that "Spam" played a key part in the design of the urinals on the Royal Navy's Swiftsure-class submarines?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Hammersley.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Spam played a key part in the design of the urinals on the Royal Navy's Swiftsure-class submarines? Nickname: "His obvious nickname, "Ham", which was in short supply in wartime, was changed to "Spam", after the tinned processed meat." Urinals: "In Skipjack there had been urinals back aft, but none in Dreadnought: Hammersley insisted that the design be modified, and the space was always known as Spam's Folly." from: "Rear-Admiral 'Spam' Hammersley, engineer officer of Britain's first nuclear submarine – obituary". The Telegraph. 17 February 2020.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jaktstuguskogen Nature Reserve
Comment: I can supply other, more traditional hooks if needed but I quite like this whimsical one

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 10:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Review: The article is new enough, big enough, well written and referenced, nominated timely. No copyvios found. The hook is interesting and cited. QPQ was done. I have to admit, I was hooked by the hook. Since April 1 is past, I recommend this go in the last position of the day's DYKs, generally reserved for oddball or intriguing hooks. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rear Admiral" hyphenation[edit]

Interesting article thanks. The article starts with "Rear-Admiral" but has "Rear Admiral" in the infobox and "rear admiral" in the text (lower case OK in that case though). Outside the article text, one reference has "Rear-Admiral" but the category has "rear admirals". The Rear admiral (Royal Navy) article is not much help in this regard as it also uses both versions with/without the hyphen and its "See also" section includes other articles titled "Rear-Admiral ..." (should these be "Rear admiral ..."?). Is there a "correct" Royal Navy usage (modern era), or can the article text at least be made internally consistent? Thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article more closely I've gone for un-hyphenated in the article text, but there is still a lot of inconsistency in its use throughout Wikipedia which doesn't look good IMHO. ~ RLO1729^💬 01:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RLO1729, thanks for your improvements to the article. You are correct, it should be unhyphenated in modern Royal Navy usage. Historically it has been hyphenated though (see Rear-Admiral of the United Kingdom or Rear-Admiral of the Blue). Other navies vary in their usage - Dumelow (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination[edit]

@Dumelow: Hi, I'd say the article could now be nominated for GA review but thought you should have first option to start the process. What do you think? Cheers, ~ RLO1729^💬 01:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RLO1729, it's been a while since I put anything through a GAN so I may be a bit rusty; more than happy to assist and deal with any comments if you want to nominate. This article is on my list of 40+ articles I think can pass GA but haven't got around to nominating (I've been in more of a new article frame of mind recently), you're more than welcome to take a look through those also if you want to nominate any and I will help to get them up to scratch - Dumelow (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do – thanks. :) ~ RLO1729^💬 06:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumelow: I've added a few details from a brief biography in the Staffordshire Sentinel, 20 October 1988. If you can access it (British Newspaper Archive), I'd be grateful if you would add any further details you find relevant to the article. Thanks, ~ RLO1729^💬 15:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No access unfortunately, if you like you could email me a copy? Otherwise I'll trust that you've picked up anything useful! - Dumelow (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see how to add attachments using the Wikipedia email contact form, so (unless I'm missing something) if you email me first I'll reply with the attachment. :) ~ RLO1729^💬 01:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the career summary details in the Who's Who source I've added differ from some of the obituary information in terms of years/vessels etc. If you are able to access it (only UK library card needed), it would be great if you could suggest what might need to be revised please. Thanks, ~ RLO1729^💬 04:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent find! I've been through and updated with the new information and resolved the inconsistencies - Dumelow (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little more detail from that Sentinel article also, thanks for sending it - Dumelow (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Hammersley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Eddie891. I look forward to seeing your review. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the number of edits made since nomination; in looking for additional sources to ensure notability I've found new information that has necessitated some revision of the article. ~ RLO1729^💬 05:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we're good to go whenever you are Eddie891. Thanks! ~ RLO1729^💬 13:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RLO1729 and Dumelow I'm planning on getting to this tomorrow morning (EST) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

" Hammersley won a scholarship to Britannia Royal Naval College to train as a deck officer but his eyesight was too poor so he chose to become an engineer instead, studying at the Royal Naval Engineering College." That's quite a mouthful- could be split up or rewritten to flow a bit better?
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
link secondment in lede?
Linked. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"He would have been nicknamed "Ham" from his surname" seems a little odd that the article says what somebody would have been nicknamed?
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Hammersley won a scholarship to Britannia Royal Naval College" is there a year?
Added years of study at RNEC (also some years for later events). ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
". Poor eyesight prevented him from taking up this opportunity but he was able to switch to the" a little convoluted, might better be expressed as "he was unable to attend the college due to poor eyesight, but was able to switch"
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"in submarines from 1954 when he joined the Submarine Service" perhaps "beginning in 1954 when he joined the Submarine Service" but as it stands is fine as well
Revised and simplified. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
link First Sea Lord
I'm sure it was linked in an earlier edit, not sure why it isn't now, but re-linked – thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"During this time, Earl Mountbatten, as First Sea Lord " -> "During this time Earl Mountbatten, as First Sea Lord,"?
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear submarines could use a link
Linked. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(the world's first nuclear submarine, USS Nautilus, demonstrated this capability with a well publicised cruise beneath the ice of the North Pole in 1958)" relevance to the article?
Deleted and citations consolidated at end of para. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Rickover was apparently disinterested" -> "Rickover was disinterested"? In my view, he either was or wasn't disinterested, there's no apparently about it
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could use 'secondment' in the article as well as in the lede
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All military ranks should be linked on their first mention (or none)
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" Hammersley was presented to the Queen" I'm unfamiliar with what 'presented' might refer to other than a Debutante ball, which I don't think you mean
Although it can also mean the debutante ceremonies that began with Queen Victoria, "presented" is regularly used to describe when a person is introduced to the monarch. The cited 1988 newspaper article uses the expression as do some Wikipedia articles: Thomas Blanke, The Good Life (1975 TV series), Alexander Fleming. I would prefer to keep the current wording. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as is then Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" later known as "Spam's Folly" in his honour." so it was considered a folly? How, then would it be an honour?
There's an element of humour that is hard to convey in the article without going into irrelevant detail. A Folly (as opposed to a folly) is an architectural construction usually built for aesthetic purposes and often found in the grounds of mansions. The humour is then in the comparison with a toilet of a submarine, and "Spam's Folly" is a light-hearted (but well-intentioned) honour. I've linked "Folly" to make this connection, does that convey the intended meaning clearly enough? ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revised the sentence further, what do you think? ~ RLO1729^💬 00:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"and three other civilians " -> "and three civilians" (unless he was a civilian as well)
Revised. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" until he became too frail, prayed on his knees every night" necessary to include?
Deleted. ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass from me, nice work on this one. Most comments are minor issues, feel free to discuss any further. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful and constructive comments. Just a few issues remaining (underlined) which I will sort out tomorrow (Australian time). Cheers, ~ RLO1729^💬 15:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the remaining items (and removed the underlining), please review. Thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumelow: Hi, would you also review all my edits above please? Thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 00:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RLO1729, excellent work. I have no issues with any of your edits - Dumelow (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I've made a few additional minor edits that can been seen in the article edit history. Please let me know if anything needs attention. Thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 06:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RLO1729, just a few referencing things:

ref #6 says he was made a Lt. on 1 July 1950
I don't see ref #5 mentioning Hammersley at all
#1 doesn't seem to cite "and three civilians were killed" Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Eddie, these were my errors. I've fixed the ref (it was the following page). I think it best to use the date the promotion was actually granted (gazetted) as the seniority was granted as a mark of recognition after the fact: he wouldn't have had the uniform and privileges of the new rank from that time. The seniority counted for pay rises, pensions and position in the line of command. I've added notes to the article giving seniority dates. I've deleted the "three civilians" bit, I don't think it adds anything - Dumelow (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dumelow, Seems like a gap in our coverage on Wikipedia is Military seniority given that there's United States military seniority... Anyways, this article is comprehensive, well written, reasonably illustrated, referenced, and otherwise meets the GA criteria. I'm happy to promote. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, thanks again for a very helpful and constructive review, a pleasure working with you. Thanks also to Dumelow for an excellent article that only needed minimal polishing to bring to GA standard. Cheers. :) ~ RLO1729^💬 13:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, it's been a pleasure to work on this - Dumelow (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]