Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Collins-class submarine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collins class submarine[edit]

This article recently underwent a major expansion in order to solve multiple issues; content was poorly organised, some sections were filled with peacock terms and/or copied directly from the source, and there were a lack of sources for large sections of the article.

With these problems (hopefully) solved, I would like to see the article make the run towards the higher ratings (A, GA, FA), and am requesting a peer review with the intention of bringing this to pass. I acknowledge that there are some areas already identified where the article needs improvement (i.e. some assorted citation/clarification tags in the text, and the poor state of the "Appearances in media and fiction" section), and assistance or suggestions to solve these and other problems with the article would be greatly appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As it has been over a month since someone has commented on the article, should this peer review be closed? Any further suggestions or comments can always be made at the article's talk page. -- saberwyn 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MBK004[edit]

  • For the "Appearances in media and fiction" section, that needs to follow WP:MILPOP explicitly, and integrate the operational aspects into the actual service history of the vessels instead of lumping them all together in a section that is a magnet for every insignificant appearance of the vessels.
  • As for the rest of the article, when I get a chance I'll leave a more thorough review. -MBK004 19:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content regarding the documentary and coffee table book is already replicated and integrated in the operational history section of Rankin, the relevent submarine. I'm not sure how major the "7 Wonders of the Australian Engineering World" appearance is... the claim was in the article when I started, and I have not yet found any sources independant of the work commenting on it. The fictional sub in "Y: The Last Man" is a major factor across multiple issues, with the submarine 'hosting' the main characters in their travels during volumes 6 and 7 of the 10-volume series, and one of the officers joining the main characters for the rest of the series. However, again, I haven't yet found reliable published commentary on this. The easiest solution would probably be to scrub the section entirely. -- saberwyn 01:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: I've scrubbed it. Let me know if you think anything should be put back in. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

Congratulations on your fantastic work expanding this article - it really is very impressive. My comments are

  • The second sentence in the 3rd para of the lead is rather long and complex
    • Trimmed that sentance down a bit. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background section could include a description of how the RAN's views on submarines changed as a result of the emphatic success of the Oberon class (which were purchased mainly to be used to support ASW training but ended up being outstanding front line assets)
    • The article is fairly long and complex as it is, and I think this information would be more relevant in the article for the Oberon class or the RAN submarine service. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could expand upon the decision to build the boats in Australia; this was a very big decision for Cabinet to make given the poor state of the Australian shipbuilding industry at the time and several ministers later said that they didn't realise what they'd gotten the Government into.
    • Will get back to you on this one, need to find sources to back this up. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I read this in Yule and Woolner's book Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a two-page history of Australian shipbuilding in the book, but I haven't yet found anything connecting the state of the industry to the decision (or the wisdom thereof) to build some or all of the boats down under. I'll keep digging, though. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: I can't find anything substantial on the decision beyond whats already in the article in Yule/Woolner or any of the other sources. If I come across anything in new sources in the future, I'll use it, but no guarantees on me being able to find anything. -- saberwyn 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably an over-statement to say that building the subs in Queensland would have been "political suicide for the project" - 'politically unacceptable' perhaps?
    • Toned down. "Politically unacceptable" sounds like it was a Canberra decision, not a company decision, so I've used "politically unwise". -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking that the combat system which was eventually installed on the subs was the same as that used for the USN's Virginia class?
    • My understanding is that they were based on the same platform, with some modifications made to the combat system for each class covering features not required for the other class. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the cite clarifying this. -- saberwyn 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the SH-2G Super Seasprite program/fiasco is a good comparison to draw on in a section which basically argues that cost increases weren't that bad - is there an average rate which can be used as a comparison instead? (the Seasprites are often considered the least successful recent Defence acquisition program, so just about everything is better then it was)
    • Seasprite was the example used in the source (which was written back when that acquisition was still kinda viable). No average rate was given, but your point is made. If I can find someting giving the average overrrun, I'll add it back in, but for now I've removed the comparison. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Sensors and systems' section should be converted to prose. The subs ESM system should also be identified as this is a key part of their capabilities.
    • The sensors and systems was left in list form to avoid a lot of single sentance-fragment paragraphs. The sources I've accessed so far have been fairly light on information about these systems (as opposed to simply "The Collins class is fited with:...") and as more I find more information I'll add it in and expand it to prose. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tried converting it to paragraphs. How does it look now? -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'characteristics' section should mention that the boats' design includes the ability to land special forces teams and that Collins was specially fitted with large hatches to support their operations during her recent major refit (according to Jane's Fighting Ships). I think that some or all of the other boats will also be fitted with the larger hatches.
    • According to MILHIST Logisitcs, you have access to Jane's Fighting Ships. If you could add the information in with a specific cite, that would be brilliant. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll look it up next time I'm near a copy (which should be in the next week). There are also some mentions of this on the ASC website, but Jane's is obviously the better source. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Saberwyn, the 99-00 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships is on my shelf. Is that up to date enough for the question you want answered - not clear what exactly it is from this thread. Update: there's nothing in my edition about Special Forces hatches. Buckshot06(prof) 05:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that Collins was modified to better support SF in about 2005 Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to The Age, Waller was the boat which supported INTERFET in 1999
  • The 'operational history' section should mention that the boats are routinely deployed on operations in peacetime to keep an eye on Australia's neigbours
    • If I can find a source that makes this claim, I'll add it in. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll also try to find where I saw this. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This press release states that the subs are "a surveillance and intelligence gathering-platform during peace time". Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've drummed up a bit of content in the first paragraph of the "Operational History" ("The submarines' primary missions are..."). I didn't use the abovementioned source, but I've instead pulled a couple of facts from the 7:30 Report transcript you used to cite the special forces capability. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of the poor working conditions on the submarines and what's being done about this should be expanded. The report on this released late last year is on the Defence website and got a lot of media attention. The report found that only SAS teams in Afghanistan had worse working conditions than submariners on an operational deployment!
    • Was this the Submarine Workforce Sustainability Review? I'll look for more sources covering this. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, that's the report. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added a line to the relevant part of the "Ship's company" section re: lowest morale and job satisfaction in the RAN. I'll keep an eye out for some more content to bulk that up a bit. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Found some other sources that go into a little more detail than those previously used, so I've traded them in and bulked up the paragraph a little. -- saberwyn 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Public perception' section repeats quite a bit of material mentioned earlier in the article. The statements that the RAN was slow to realise that the Collins class required a high degree of support and development also seems a bit out of place here. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any suggestions on what could be eliminated or moved elsewhere? -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first para could be integrated with the 'development and design' section (as it seems to be about specialists' views and political maneuvering), the second para could be split between the 'development and design' and 'Problems during construction and trials' sections, the third para could be integrated with the 'Problems during construction and trials' section, the fourth seems to fit in with the 'McIntosh-Prescott Report and Fast Track program' sub-section and the final para with the 'Operational history' section. Those are just suggestions though. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the section and placed it at User:Saberwyn/Collins class#Public perception scrapyard. From there, I've merged some of the content back into the rest of the article, and eliminated some of the duplication, but I'm not sure how to work the rest in at the moment. -- saberwyn 06:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: I think I have most of it intefrated back in now. -- saberwyn 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Collins-class_submarine&oldid=537479956"