Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/HMS Liverpool (C11)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HMS Liverpool (C11)[edit]

It's great to see MILHIST is as active and hospitable as it's always been, along with many familiar account names, too! This article's been substantially expanded since its last PR...about two years. I've reached an impasse; there's only limited potential now for appreciable expansion. It's comprehensive within the availability of sources and accurately representative of the sources used. I'm hesitant about nominating it for FA status and it definitely would benefit from fresh insight. SoLando (Talk) 09:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoenit[edit]

Article seems to be in very good shape, well done. Might I suggest you withdraw the peer review and head for A-class review instead? I don't think peer this review is going bring any major points which can't be handled during A-class review and if you pass for that it is just a short jump to FA.

comments:

  • I prefer a separate section on the construction and design of the ship (first two paragraphs). I also think you can flesh out the first paragraph a bit more, explain for example the differences from the Arethusa class and what the design was based on.
  • Implemented. I've expanded it a little bit. I'll try to intrdouce more detail later on.
  • too many external links. Have a critical look at them.
  • Rationalised
  • What makes uboat.net a reliable source? Yoenit (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure...;-) I'll attempt to locate an alternative source, but there's actually some discrepancy as to who succeeded Captain Read. I might delete that if I can't verify AL Poland's command in the next few days. SoLando (Talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woody[edit]

The article looks really good and I echo the A-Class comment made above.

  • Structurally, the current structure for ship articles such as these is to have a design/construction section separate from the career section. I don't really mind either way but probably lean more to having a separate section for quick reference.
  • Do we know who the wife of the Governor of the Bank of England was who christened her?
  • Identified her and quoted a part of her speech at the launch ceremony.
  • Dates, I note you use "On the 28th", some FA reviews particularly love MOSNUM which doesn't like this form, but it works within the prose, so hey ho.
  • It's been an agonising struggle to minimise the repetition of full months and noun gender ;-)
  • You spelt ABC's name wrong, it's Cunningham. ;)
  • Ahem
  • A couple of the external links could be pruned [1] and [2] don't seem to add a great deal.
    Removed. The former does offer some fascinating accounts of Liverpool's interception of the Asama Maru and her torpedoing, albeit without any discernable attribution.
  • As you can see, these are all pretty small niggles. This is looking really good, well done. Regards Woody (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, A-class review it is! Thank you both for your suggestions - and it's great to see you around, Woody! SoLando (Talk) 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06[edit]

One thing you might check. Was the ship involved in Operation Recoil, the final operation in regard to the Corfu Channel Incident? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Liverpool was in Greek waters at the time of the incident and I think Liverpool was referenced in a book dealing with the mining. I'll Google it... SoLando (Talk) 09:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney[edit]

  • Nit picking but there is no need to use the British Royal Navy in the lede, Royal Navy will suffice.
  • Omitted, although it was historically encouraged on Wikipedia. Has the convention changed?
  • She commissioned into the navy on 2 November 1938. Does not read right She was commissioned or just Commissioned would be better.
  • Rephrased
  • Consider linking armoured cruiser San Giorgio, and sank the minesweeper Giovanni Berta. It will add red links but then it would encourage creation of the articles.
  • Linked. I'll see if I can stubify them.
  • Mixing of dates we have the 9 July than a bit further on 29th and 30th.
  • Clarified. It's not an attempt to disregard MoS, just trying to minimise the repetition of full dates ;-).
  • 12 sailors (including one unidentifiable) does this mean they did not know who he was ?
  • Presumably he was later identified, but at the time could not be due to his wounds (although that isn't explicitly stated as the reason). Clarified.
  • Excellent! I'll upload this image later on.
  • Is this correct In September 1951, Liverpool became the first British warship to visit Yugoslavia since the beginning of the war should it not be since the end of the war. Numerous RN ships docked at Yugoslav islands during the war. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there's absolutely no elaboration on the context in the source used. It notes only that she was the first RN warship to visit the country since the beginning of the war. According to the New York Times, Liverpool was the first "Western" ship to do so in 12 years. It's possible that this refered to Liverpool being the first warship to visit the Yugsolav mainland, rather than the Dalmatian Islands, or that it was the first formal-cum-fly-the-flag visit. The sources aren't that specific :-/. Thank you, Jim! SoLando (Talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo[edit]

  • I sadly sub-edit citations, or happily for editors who detest knowing their internals.
    Haha. I certainly don't hold that against you!
  • Article shows signs of two bibliographic styles being merged, neither dominant, neither providing complete citation information of works cited (largely missing publication information, possibly missing secondary information of lesser importance like works in series).
    Slowly standardising.
  • One citation style is highly atypical with regards to articles in periodicals (magazines, newspapers)
  • Bibliography:
    Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Is 2006 a reprint, or is 2006 the Rev. ed.? Might pay to specify this?
    Rohwer, Jürgen & Hümmelchen, Gerhard (1992). Fullstop after location/publisher for your style. Location?
    Titterton, G.A. (2002). Routledge publishes in a ton of locations. Which did you consult? (UK/US paginations often vary).
    Whitley, M. J. (2000). Location?
    All addressed. I've replaced the generic Colledge with the edition I used in the article.
  • Short citations:
    Colledge, J.J. & Warlow, Ben (2003). ?? 2006 1969 is in the bibliography?
    Stephen, Martin & Grove, Eric (1993); Bishop, Chris (2002); Brown, Paul (2009); a general problem. Citation not given in full, full citation not given in bibliography.
    Mason, Geoffrey B. (2004). Fullcitation given in bibliography.
    Removed
    A general problem with non-standard style used for newspaper articles; for example, Latest Cruiser Launched, The Glasgow Herald, 25 March 1937, p. 12. Highly non-standard citation of a newspaper article. [author if available] "Article Title," Newspaper Title?
    Reformatted?
    A City’s Gift to Warship. H.M.S. Liverpool in the Mersey. Find a better online copy please? This copy is hosted at a website for which an individual member of staff of a University (no guarantee they're academic) takes editorial responsibility.
    I've belatedly realised that I have access to the archives through my indispensable library card!
    Waters, Sydney David (1956), Needs a fuller citation. Requires both original publication information, and Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Electronic Text Centre as the current publisher. Try: Waters, Sydney David [1956] (2004), The Royal New Zealand Navy, Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–45, Wellington, New Zealand: War History Branch, Department of Internal Affairs; reprinted electronically Official War History project, Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Electronic Text Centre. Retrieved 12 April 2008.
    Apart from other work required, correct the hyphen British Warships Here at least 12; Navy Lists Warspite, 2 Car-riers, 4 Cruisers Among the Vessels Now in Our Ports
    Generally, check for scholarly journal articles?
    The variety of material cited is adequate (apart from scholarly journal articles), if the presentation of citations was improved, both the ability to verify the editorial work would improve, and the quality of the editorial work would shine through. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fifelfoo. I've extensively reformatted the references (some have yet to be reformatted, while others don't appear to have ISBNs). Some refs have been supplanted by the Times (I guess more explicitly credible where used...). Appreciate the comprehensive assesment of the article's references! SoLando (Talk) 10:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! :) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/HMS_Liverpool_(C11)&oldid=384559759"