Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Hood (51)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Promoted by The ed17 03:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC) [1][reply]

HMS Hood (51)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel_66 (talk)

I'm nominating this article because I think that it's ready for A-class. That said, I've worked it over until my eyes are crossed and there's probably still plenty of things wrong with it because I've incorporated much of the original text. I look forward to new sets of eyes helping to improve it as there are probably numerous overlinks and other small problems. Hopefully I've taken care of the larger issues, but perhaps not; belike, I'm a bit too close to judge.

This had an ACR back four years ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Hood (51)/archive1, but there's not much meat there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments It's good to see that the article on this interesting and important ship has been brought to a high standard. I think it needs a bit more work to reach A class:
    • The piping of the link to Mackensen-class battlecruiser in the lead para looks a bit untidy (the piped text is probably longer than the name of the article it links to)
      • Agreed.
    • "She was refitted twice before being stationed with the Mediterranean Fleet due to the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War" sounds a bit awkward
      • Cleaned up.
    • "and later as an intercept force" is also a bit awkward (particularly as the intention wasn't to intercept the invasion force - which was impossible for Scotland-based ships, but rather to attack the follow on forces)
      • How does it work now?
    • " the resulting orders from Prime Minister Winston Churchill to the Royal Navy to "sink the Bismarck" culminated in a naval battle on 26–27 May that ended in the sinking of the Bismarck" - 'sink the Bismarck' is effectively repeated in this sentence
      • Recommend: "...culminated in a naval battle on 26–27 May that sunk the German battleship." bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, but I like the new wording better. What do y'all think?
    • "Partly because of the manner in which Hood was lost in World War II, the battlecruiser remains a popular subject for naval history, with extensive research being done into the reasons for the loss of Hood and into the subsequent chase of Bismarck by the Royal Navy, which deployed nearly 100 ships of various types in the effort to locate and sink Bismarck" - this is a long sentence and it's a bit repetitive
      • Deleted the whole paragraph as not relevant.
    • "She was the only ship to carry these guns in the hydraulically powered Mark II twin turrets which were designated 'A', 'B', 'X' and 'Y' from front to rear." - did other ships carry these guns in a different configuration of turrets as this implies, or were the turrets given different names on other ships? (or both?)
      • Rewritten.
    • "The gun house for this mount was larger than the previous mountings" - what were these previous mountings? (eg, were they fitted to Hood or, as I assume, earlier BBs/BCs)
      • Cleaned up.
    • The paragraph with begins "Construction of Hood began" seems to repeat much of the content of the 'Protection' section.
      • How so? This section talks about the layered scheme of the deck armour, which isn't well covered in the protection section.
    • The sentence which begins "She was launched on 22 August 1918" is a bit over-long and should be split
      • Done.
    • Hood and her companions during their world cruise was designated the 'Special Service Squadron'. You could note that this squadron was present at the scuttling of HMAS Australia (1911) during its visit to Australia.
      • Happy to, got a cite?
        • Yep, in the HMAS Australia article Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article refers to the "reputation and legend of the "Mighty Hood"", but doesn't actually explain what this was. From memory, she was considered one of the more significant symbols of the RN and British Empire (her visit to Australia was considered a very big deal at the time) and this explains why her loss was such a shock (except to people who actually knew how obsolete she was).
    • "This lasted until January 1941" - it's a bit unclear what the 'this' is here (patrol work or being dispatched against reported German raiders?)
      • Where? I'm not finding this phrase.
    • "Holland’s ships caught up with Bismarck and her consort" - this implies that they over-hauled the German ships in a chase, when they actually intercepted them from the south.
      • Agreed.
    • Do the sources allow anything to be said about Hood's crew? (including her habitability). At present all that's specified is how many of them there were and that they once participated in a mutiny. Given that she was the RN's most prestigious ship for much of her career, did she receive unusually high quality officers (including captains)? Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uncertain about the quality of her officers, although I suspect it was a plum assignment. I can add some stuff about her habitability. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everyone of Hood's captains made flag rank so I've added them in, mostly as a bunch of redlinks. See how well I've integrated them into the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments have now been addressed. I'd suggest looking for further details on the ship's crew before this goes to a FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Done a bit of a copyedit, undo anything you disagree with
  • In the lead, 2nd para (and again, in para 3 of "Inter War Service"), the status of the ship in relation to the Mediterranean forces is unclear. Was she deployed for the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, left, then came back for the Spanish civil war, or does the claim that "When the Spanish Civil War broke out, Hood was officially assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet" mean that she'd 'unofficially' been with the fleet since the Italo-Abyssinian War deployment, and had just been hanging around before being formally integrated into the order of battle?
    • This is spelled out in the main body. She was attached to the Mediterranean Fleet shortly afterward and stationed at Gibraltar at the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. Hood returned to Portsmouth for a brief refit between 26 June and 10 October 1936. She formally transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet on 20 October
      • Although its definitely clearer in the body (although a date associating with the posting at Gibraltar or the war's outbreak would be a good addition there - I've added "in October", but feel free to remove/change), I think the lead could do wit a little tweaking to make clear the 'go, come back' sequence of events clearer. May I suggest She was attached to the Mediterranean Fleet following the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War in 1935. After returing to England in mid-1936 for refit, Hood was officially assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet shortly after the Spanish Civil War broke out. She remained in the Mediterranean until she had to return to England in 1939 for an overhaul. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly I don't really see a need to get this level of detail in the lede. It's only a summary.
          • Its that the 'attached', then 'permanently assigned' thing reads to me as really confusing. Let me try a less-detail version: She operated with the Mediterranean Fleet during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War and the Spanish Civil War, and remained in the Mediterranean until 1939., dropping the 'status' of her operation with the Fleet, and the "return for overhaul" bit. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copied in the boiler and turbine details from the infobox to the second paragraph of "Description". Can you doublecheck and cite if necessary?
    • Done
  • The broadside torpedoes tubes: were three facing off each side, or could one (or more) be reaimed to fire in the other direction? This is probably a stupid question, but it needs to be made a little clearer in the article
    • Added fixed to the torpedo section.
      • Unfortunately, now it reads to John 'Idiot' Landlubber that all six tubes fire in one direction. May I suggest Six fixed 21-inch torpedo tubes were mounted on Hood, three on each broadside. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed.
  • In "Fire Control", the 'fore-top' where the supplementary secondary rangefinders were fitted: was that the same place as the second primary director was located (spotting top of the foremast)?
    • Yes, spotting top, fore-top, control top; the usual multitude of names for the same place.
      • Would this be worth specifying? -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be worth renaming the "Protection" section as "Armour"? That's all it seems to deal with
    • It also mentions the anti-torpedo bulges, though I think one could argue that it is a type of armor. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it includes the bulge info, I prefer to use protection.
  • Any particular reason for the inconsistent use of the {{Convert}} template for armour thicknesses?
    • Each number is only converted once.
  • In the fourth para of "Protection", were the two torpedo tubes removed to allow for more armour in addition to the six mentioned in "Armament", or was it reduced to four?
    • It was reduced to four.
  • Is there somewhere the single-paragraph "Aircraft" section could be merged into. Maybe "Armament"?
    • I wouldn't recommend that. The recon/observation function of these aircraft mean they don't fit under armament or fire control very neatly. Most other battleship/battlecruiser articles maintain aircraft as a subsection of the design section, so we ought to keep it consistant. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second para of "Inter-war service": A couple of sentances describing the actions of the Special Service Squadron (specificly Hood's actions) during the cruise would be valuable.
    • I can add her intinerary, but it's not like she did much other than "she saw and was seen".
      • Maybe a list or numbers of the nations called into which would fit nicely after They returned home ten months later in September 1924... with ...having visited A, B, C... or having called into X ports in Y nations. If there was a sort of goal or 'mission statement' behind the cruise (the Cruise of the Special Service Squadron article indicates the aim was to make port visits to Britain's WWI allies), that might be good to add. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The purpose would be better than the stopovers, not least because it's a shorter list.
  • Third para of "Inter War": Was there much damage to Renown? If it was only light, could maybe rephrase as "...the ship collided with the battlecruiser HMS Renown on 23 January 1935; both ships suffered only minor damage." Is there also any indication of specificly what/where the damage happened on Hood?
    • Hood was rammed by Renown at her quarterdeck. Her left outer propeller was badly damaged and her hull had a bunch of plates started by the impact as well as a dent 18 inches (.45 m) deep. Renown was more badly damaged, although I'd have to look to see how long she was under repair and what exactly was done to her.
      • Maybe rephrase/elaborate as While en route to Gibraltar for a Mediterranean cruise, Hood was rammed in the portside quarterdeck by the battlecruiser HMS Renown on 23 January 1935. [Although Renown was out of service for X months because of main problem-my idiot guess is bow damage?], the damage to Hood was limited to her left outer propeller and an 18-inch (460 mm) dent, although some hull plates were knocked loose from the impact. Temporary repairs were made at Gibraltar before the ship sailed to Portsmouth for permanent repairs between February and May 1935.? Your call if you feel the need to specify Renown's damage or not. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed.
  • Fouth para: "new, lighter machinery"...does this refer to propulsion machinery, or something else?
    • In this context it almost always means boilers and/or turbines/engines, but I've specified it.
      • Always better to specify for John Landlubber. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operation Catapult", para 1: Does it specify what means the French were to take to stop their ships falling into Axis hands? I imagine either scuttling or disarming. It would be good to specify.
    • Somerville's ultimatum actually told the French to sail them to a port (suggesting Britain, a French colony, or other neutral place) where the Germans couldn't get at them. He never suggested the French actually damage or destroy the ships themselves. But I'm not entirely sure it's especially relevant to the Hood's history. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Expanding the sentance Just eight days after the French surrender, the British Admiralty had issued an ultimatum to the French Fleet at Oran to ensure they would not fall into German or Italian hands. a little to indicate the expected measures would be good context; simply 'to ensure' is very vague and the reader is left to wildly speculate if Hood and others firing on the ships is an adequate response to the refusal or not. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. How does it read now?
          • Tiny tweak made. Maybe condense ...fall into German or Italian hands. to {{xt|...fall into Axis hands. if you become worred about an overly-long sentance. -- saberwyn 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a quote reference in "Aftermath of the sinking" that's been tagged as dead since September last year (and still is). Are you able to find a replacement, or alternatley provide a different cite for the quote?
    • Fixed.
  • In "Modern Theories", the quote from Anthony Prestion does not have ending quotation marks, so its unclear where it ends.
    • Fixed.
  • For "Wreck", a little more information on the finding of the ship (what effort went into locating the wreck, had there been any previous attemtps, and if so, why had they been unsuccessful) is needed. To that end, I have a book Mearns wrote following the search for HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran (which contains content on some of his previous disoveries, like Hood) that may help (although you may get more from his co-authored book with White). I'll hammer some notes together in userspace over the next few days, and you can integrate them if/as you see fit.
    • User:Saberwyn/Hood search...Here's what I got. There wasn't much detail on the condition of the wreck itself, but that's fairly well covered already. -- saberwyn 03:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wreck" also needs some rejigging: at the moment its a two-sentance paragraph, a block of text, and another two-sentance para. This will probably fix itself as information is added, but keep it in mind.
  • There's two books cited to Anthony Preston. The second (published 2002 by Conway), lacks a title.
    • You've fixed it. Thanks -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a fair number of citations to the website for the Hood veterans association. I don't know where it falls on the scale of reliable sources, but the question will probably be raised at FA (if not here), so you may need to start thinking about responses.
    • I'm not too worried about it qualifying as highly reliable. It's an organization and most of what I'm using are copies of Admiralty documents.
  • There's a glut of images in the "Battle of the Denmark Strait" section, and not too many elsewhere. If you can, address the balance. I'd suggest finding image examples of some of the features discussed in "Description" and subsections, because I get almost three screens of text between the profile drawing near the top of the section and the Sydney Harbour photo in the "Inter-war Service" section.

Hope this helps. -- saberwyn 01:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your efforts so far. My apologies if I'm being unclear or nitpicky. -- saberwyn 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all, I'll probably be responding only sporadically for the next week or so. Finals week, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use Second World War in the lead, and World War X in every occurence in the body. Probably needs to be standardised. -- saberwyn 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
I still think the "Wreck" section needs some reorganisation of the info to make the paragraph size more consistent. but that should only a light copyedit. Support for A class. -- saberwyn 08:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from baha (who is pissed that he got a BSOD while typing this and has to do it all again):

  • The image imbalance is rather clear. Of the nine images (including the lead), four are of Hood's loss, and one is a bit of her wreck. It shouldn't be too hard to find images of specific components in the description section, like the guns or an aircraft flying off the ship. The phot and sketch of the explosion can be combined side-by-side using {{double image}}. This will free up space to move the Schmitz-Westerholt painting down, because it's sandwiching (boxing) text between it and the Prince of Wales photo.
    • You've done some work here, and I've taken care of the left-right jogs and double image. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick is entirely right about the impact of Hood's sinking. If I were a reader who didn't already know, reading this article would leave me wondering what the fuss was about, why Churchill was so upset at her loss that he demanded the Bismarck be sunk, and why the RN devoted so many resources to the task. Her status as the pride of the fleet needs to be expanded, possibly into a subsection of the aftermath section (which could also use some wordage on the subsequent hunt for and sinking of the German battleship). This would be a great place to display the Schmitz-Westerholt painting, kind of a pop-culture impact. There should probably be some more written about the sinking of the Bismarck in the aftermath section, since it is more or less directly related.
      • Done.
    • You did mention more about Bismarck, but I think you really need to emphaise the importance of the Hood outside of just the Royal Navy more. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does it work now?
  • I echo Nick again in talking about her crew. Surely she had notable captains besides Tomkinson and Kerr over her twenty one years (and I actually had to search for Kerr's name, John Leach's name was more prominent IMO, and he commanded a different ship!). The only others mentioned are the three survivors.
  • The logical organization needs a bit of work. For one, the lead is a tad long, and you can probably move some of the info on the ship's history out or cut duplication. The background in the lead (i.e. unfinished sister ships, Emergency War Programme) and the "construction" subsection should either be in the sections regard the ship's history, or in a background section between "description" and "inter-war service". The "surviving relics" section should be a subsection of the "wreck" section, even though they aren't from the wreck itself.
  • It seems like two sentances on the collision with Renown are not enough. Wouldn't such an incident be followed with inquiries, firing the captain, and maybe a court-martial? "lightly damaged" is rather vague, and it was significant enough that she needed to be serviced more than once (and they picked bits of the propeller from her bilge).
    • Good idea about the court-martial. I'll add something about it when I get a chance.
  • The last sentance in the "inter-war service" section ("Her condition meant, among other things, that she was unable to attain her top designed speed.") should state what speeds she was actually capable of in her degraded state. You mention it in the next section, so it's probably best to move that sentance up.
    • Unfortunately, I think that her maximum speed would change depending on how long since she'd had her bottom cleaned and when her last machinery overhaul had taken place. Furthermore, I don't know what it was at any time except when given.
  • Is there more information about the damage she took in September 1939? Was this a German attack (if so, where the devil did the aircraft come from?), or an accident... was there a battle/skirmish or just dumb luck?
  • In the "description" section, you mention Hood being chosen to chase down the Bismarck due to her speed, and it's probably worth repeating that in the "Battle of the Denmark Strait" subsection.
    • Rephrased as it more a question of availability than anything else.
  • "This was followed by a devastating magazine explosion that destroyed the after part of the ship." Maybe I'm confusing my naval terminology (or perhaps an ENGVAR thing), but shouldn't it properly be "destroyed the aft part of the ship"?
    • Indeed.
  • "Memorials to those who died are spread widely around the UK..." and on should probably be moved to the aftermath section, or wherever you expand upon the imact of the Hood's sinking.
  • In the second theory, about the underwater shell strike, how far would a shell have had to penetrate to reach the magazine?
    • Not sure, but I've added the available info.
  • What kind of boats/launches did she carry? I think it's worth mentioning in the "description" section, since the impacts to the boat decks are significant to the accepted theory.
    • Honestly don't think that it's that important. As you can see from the one aerial photo, the answer is lots of boats.
  • The line "...as by his estimation the angle of fall of Bismarck's 38 cm shells..." seems inconsistant since the Bismarck's shells are described as "15-inch" everywhere else.
    • Fixed
  • There are a few spots where you use the degree symbol (°), and some where you spell out the word. Is there a reason for the inconsistancy?
    • Nope, fixed.

It's mostly small issues, and shouldn't be too hard to fix for a support from me. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; like I said above I'll only be able to sporadically respond for the next week or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the issues have been addressed, and some not. Please follow up on your thoughts as to the ones that you haven't acted on yet. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

  • Compelling writing so far, Sturm. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She had a metacentric height of 4.2 feet (1.3 m) at deep load, as well as a complete double bottom. The additional armour added during construction increased her draft by about 4 feet (1.2 m) at deep load, which reduced her freeboard and made her very wet.": A suggestion here. "As well as" has a connotation that what follows amplifies what comes before. There's a connection between those two things, but it seems to me there's a stronger connection between the extra weight of the double bottom and what comes after; is there a way to move the double bottom into the next sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The double bottom did not relate to her overweight problem. Lemme see if I can find another place to put it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's an "F IV H catapult"?
    • Deleted as superfluous.
  • "the US continued with their established design direction, the slower but well-protected South Dakota-class battleship": I think a reader is likely to come away with the impression that there actually was such a battleship ... there wasn't, just a design. Is there a way to reword?
    • How does it read now?
  • "armour/protective arrangement": see WP:SLASH.
    • Fixed.
  • Done for now. I stopped at HMS_Hood_(51)#Construction. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your work so far. See how well the double bottom info fits; I'm not really happy with it right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, HMS_Hood_(51)#Construction. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys, I'll finish this one as soon as I'm done with Vyborg. On the list question, the best link is WP:EMBED#Appropriate use of lists, and that's one of the Good Article criteria. I'll get to this soon. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, have to do some FAC work before this one, but it will be today for sure. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got a little farther, I'll finish up tomorrow morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HOOD V RENOWN OFF AROSA 23–1–35": See WP:ALLCAPS. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the list format in Modern theories on the sinking is supported by MOS, specifically WP:EMBED.
  • "; a world first": what was it that never happened before? Underwater video streamed to a website, or video from a certain depth, or underwater video streamed to a national broadcaster's website, or .... ? - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • What's the difference between a messdeck and living quarters? I think you should just have living quarters, or specify which mess (probably the enlisted one) which was drenched.
    • The messdecks were the living quarters for the junior enlisted men. Some NCOs and all officers had separate living quarters, most all of which got wet. There were different messes for many specialties and I don't propose to detail all of them.
      • Messdeck could use a link; anyways I guess even with the jargon its clear enough to the reader that some parts of the ship where some subset of the crew ate and/or slept were uncomfortable.
  • Which page of Taylor (pp. 92, 94 or 123) says she was "the largest submarine in the Navy"? I think you should cite that individually.
    • Done.
  • You kind of mention this obliquely regarding her high speed and armament earning her a nickname, but that sounds kind of POV-ish to me; wasn't there an actual story how the Hood received the nickname "Mighty Hood"?
    • Nope, just consensus as to why.
      • Hmm, ok just checking. Hood is not the only ship with a nickname of dubious origin.
  • Super-long third paragraph in Inter-war service should be split; it will make the last image format better.
    • Done.
  • Sinking; wasn't there a story how each of those three survived that massive explosion?
    • Sure, but not really relevant to this article; it's more appropriate to articles on the fellows themselves, if they're notable in their own right.
      • I think simply surviving the sinking makes them notable; anyways, you have a one sentence paragraph that easily could be expanded. I'd redlink the names, add their ranks, and detail the 3 hour wait to be rescued by Electra, then mention all three testified in the official inquiries. Kirk (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've followed the same procedure that I used on the battlecruisers blown up at Jutland where I provide numbers and the ships that rescued them. I don't feel that simply surviving makes them notable in any way. I've added their ranks and corrected their time in the water before rescue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:BULLET I don't think you should have the bullet points in the theory section and you should summarize the 6 theories in the lead paragraph.
    • I disagree. The bullets nicely organize the theories, especially as several of them are really too short to stand on their own as paragraphs. I've added a discussion as to the investigations into her loss and some, but not all, of the theories. I only covered those that disagree with the board's conclusion; those that only focus on how the magazines exploded are left for later. See how it reads.
      • The section doesn't even have a lead sentence, just a sentence fragment, and if you didn't have the bullets it would read the same to me; which is what the MOS says Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. I don't think Dank got this far in the article, he might have a comment or two once he gets here.
  • The motto is not cited.
    • Done.
  • I'm confused about the torpedo tubes - they removed the two underwater tubes ahead of the A-turret but why did she have 2 torpedo tubes in 1941 - shouldn't it be 4?
    • Look again, 2 x 2=4
  • Good work, very interesting and comprehensive article. Kirk (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but here are a few comments: Would it be too much to ask for a separation of notes and citations? I find that much easier to read. What I found particularly interesting are the slight discrepancies in timing when I look at the German sources about who fired when during Hoods final battle in the Denmark Strait. The distance between Hood and Bismarck was also judged differently by Von Müllenheim-Rechberg in comparison to the numbers stated here. But all of this is minor. This may be difficult to address but not much is mentioned about the crew and its structure, such as how many officers, how many men per gun or for driving the engines were needed, etc. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the crew numbers based on the best info I've got, but I can't break out the info on them to the level that you want, nor do I ever expect to be able to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 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_Hood_(51)&oldid=431280581"