Talk:HMAS Hobart (D63)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMAS Hobart (D63) 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

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / South Pacific / British / European / World War II

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Australia: Military history / Maritime Low‑importance

	Australia portal HMAS Hobart (D63) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

HMAS Hobart (D63) was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 10, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

I63

According to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq69-2.htm, Hobart's pennant was I63. Should this article be renamed accoringly (i.e. HMAS Hobart (I63))?--J Clear 02:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hobart and her Australian sisters carried both I and D pennant numbers during their careers. As the D number roughly corresponds with their WW II service, this is the pennant used for the disambiguator. -- saberwyn 04:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable

"the torpedo at one edge of the fan impacted against Hobart instead"
Could you mean "at one edge of the fantail"?
As much as I know about navies, I have never heard of the "fan" of a torpedo. On the other hand, some torpedoes were/are propelled by steam turbines, and others were propelled by small piston engines. Could the "fan" be the "turbine"?
Also, during WW II, both the Americans and the Germans had torpedoes propelled by electric storage batteries and electric motors. These had the advantage of making no bubbles and little noise. Still, steam torpedoes were a lot more common in the fleets of the Americans, British, Japanese, Germans, Australians, Dutch, Italians, and Canadians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.215.180.7 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems correct to me. Unless I'm mistaken the term "fan" here seems to be referring to the pattern of a spread of torpedoes that were fired, the outer one of which struck Hobart. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMAS Hobart (D63)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Comments to follow over next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, apologies for the delay in getting to this - I had anticipated starting this earlier in the week but real life got out of hand a little! Anyway, have done my initial pass over of the article.

Initial comments

Dupe link: Espiritu Santo
No dab links
Checklinks identified a couple of dead links; one is the external link section so could probably just be deleted, but the other one is the cite for Hobart being at the Japanese surrender.
Image tags check out OK

Lead

The third sentence of the lead is excessively long.

Infobox

A lot of the characteristics in the infobox are not mentioned in the article body e.g. length, beam etc..., so should be cited. However, most ship articles will incorporate the characteristics as text to do away with the need for citing the infobox. See HMS Gloucester (62) as an example.

Design and construction

"one for each machinery space"; I think it better to replace machinery space with "unit" for consistency with the phrase "two self-contained units" introduced earlier in this section.
There are two consecutive cites to page 15 of Frame in this section, delete the first of these if it is not an error. This also applies to the final paragraph of this section, which cites the same page in Bastock three times for each sentence; these should be consolidated. Further note: having gone through the operational history, I see a lot of these repeated cites issues.

Operational history

The Royal Navy section is extremely short; is there anything that could be added here; her commander, home port in the West Indies? You could probably also mention the decommissioning from the RN.
"transferred to the RAN on 6 October"; first mention of the RAN so state in full then abbreviate. You could also abbreviate the Royal Navy as well (beginning in previous section).
"visited her namesake city"; need to mention the actual name of the ship earlier for context.
link Singapore, Colombo, Ceylon, Aden
"volunteers": the pipelink here is to Hugh Sweeney; rather than the pipe link, I would mention him directly in the text.
"Hobart's captain"; do we have the name of the captain, if so, perhaps introduce earlier if possible.
"collected 57 of the 70 aboard": 70 what? I know it is kind of obvious, but we do need to be explicit.
"On 7 August, Hobart supported..." Would add the year here for clarity. The way the following sentence started, I initially thought it was not in chronological order. There seems to be quite a gap in her service history between August 1942 and July 1943; is there anything that can be added here? When did she join Task Force 74?
"...serious damage.[12] The damage...": close repeat usage of the same word (damage), suggest rephrasing.

Citations

For the book citations, a couple are in the harvard style (author, year, page), e.g. cite 3. I suggest converting them all to this style in the wiki markup. I have duplicated cite 3 to this effect as an exemplar. You'll see how it links to the citation, this can be handy for readers.

References

The Campbell ref does not have publisher's location. Ditto the Linton and Colledge ref, which also needs an OCLC number.

Hope that this is helpful, will check back in a few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: just a nudge, how are you getting on here? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: sorry for the delay, but I'm busy in real life and I already have HMS Liverpool to work on. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: OK, will place this one on hold for a while. Zawed (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

It's been over seven weeks since this was placed on hold. L293D, Zawed, will the work be done soon? If not, perhaps this should be closed and renominated later once the work has been done. In such a case, Zawed, you could (but certainly don't have to) offer to pick up the new nomination when it's made. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: feel free to fail this one. I'm busy IRL and in different wikiprojects. Thanks, Zawed, for this great review and I hope to see you again! L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will close this one. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in HMAS Hobart (D63)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of HMAS Hobart (D63)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MacDonald":

From Ramsay MacDonald: Morgan, Kevin. (2006) MacDonald (20 British Prime Ministers of the 20th Century), Haus Publishing, ISBN 1-904950-61-2
From Florida: MacDonald, Victoria M. (April 2004). "The Status of English Language Learners in Florida: Trends and Prospects" (PDF). Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 9, 2014. Retrieved May 24, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]