Talk:HMCS Protecteur (AOR 509)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 07:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: are you going to start this review? Thanks. --Admr Boltz 17:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes; yes, I am. But be advised that RL affairs can delay a review far past three days.
- No worries, just my first MILHIST GAN... Wasn't sure how y'all's timelines work. --Admr Boltz 13:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No different than anyone else's, I suspect. But it all depends on the individual reviewer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take a look at any of the recent ship FA or GA-class articles for better ways to format the article, even though they're warships instead of an auxiliary like this one.
- I will take my cues from HMCS Fredericton. --Admr Boltz 13:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a bad choice, although not the best, IMO, as I think the contruction info in the lede is rather redundant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - True... but only other non-British first Canadian Naval vessel GA... --Admr Boltz 04:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replenishment oiler should be linked in the infobox and lede. Remover the |2 from the template in both places.
- Done. --Admr Boltz 13:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link boiler, knots, nautical mile in both the infobox and main body.
- Done. --Admr Boltz 13:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many horsepower or kW does the turbine have? And how many propellers does it drive?
- The resources I have available do not provide that information. --Admr Boltz 13:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Power and number of propellers are in the already cited Combat Fleets reference. Now added.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the infobox should be supported and cited in the main body. Missing items are standard displacement and ice class.
- Done. --Admr Boltz 17:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's an ice rating? Link or explain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikilinked. I wish I knew which specific scale she was a part of but the sourcing doesn't list that. --Admr Boltz 04:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the Capacity info from the infobox as the infobox is supposed to be a quick summary of the ships stats. Same for the two range figures, pick just one for the infobox.
- Done. --Admr Boltz 13:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is supposed to summarize the entire article. Don't worry about summarizing the ship's stats, though.
- Done. --Admr Boltz 17:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The General characteristics para doesn't flow well. Rearrange it to cover the ship itself at the beginning and then her capabilities, like cargo and the dental clinic. I think that the bit about the clinic supporting deployed sailors is understood and can be deleted.
- Rearranged, though I am not sure about removing the dental clinic information. --Admr Boltz 17:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the waste disposal unit still fitted? If not, why not? You've really just given the reader a teaser here. Either expand it or delete it. More later, once you've had a chance to respond to these comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted as what I found was the only bit on it. --Admr Boltz 17:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that restating her draught as 10.1 m is much better than your current language as, strictly speaking, she'd run aground in water exactly 10.1 m deep.
- Fixed. --Admr Boltz 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many 3"/50s was she fitted with originally? And how many Phalanx mounts was she fitted with? When were they removed?
- Fixed this. She had a twin 3"/50 on the bow before the CIWS mounts were installed. --Admr Boltz 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
was also temporary fitted with a 76 mm machine gun mount Do you mean 7.62 mm or 76 mm? The latter is far more than a simple machine gun mount. If you do mean machine guns, I strongly suspect more than one was fitted during the Gulf War.
- The exact quote is ".76-MILLIMETRE GUN: Used against surface and air targets. Was already carried by Terra Nova. An older, slower-firing version was added to Protecteur." I am not sure on the caliber but the quote tends to support the single-mount being added. --Admr Boltz 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 98–99 Combat Fleets (p. 84), she was re-equipped with the bow mounted 76.2 mm mount, two single 40 mm Bofors guns, two Phalanxes, 6 .5 in machine guns and some Blowpipe and Javelin MANPADs for the Gulf war. It stated that it retained the Phalanxes and Bofors in 1998.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a full citation for that, and I can add it in. --Admr Boltz 23:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baker, A.D. (1998). The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World 1998–1999. Annapolis, Maryland, US: Naval Institute Press. pp. 83–84. ISBN 1-55750-111-4. is the cite for this. The 2002-3 Jane's Fighting ships states that the Bofors were later removed (Saunders, Stephen (2002). Jane's Fighting Ships 2002–2003. Coulsdon, UK: Jane's Information Group. p. 65. ISBN 0710624328. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)).Nigel Ish (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Admr Boltz 23:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2004-2005 edition of Jane's says that the 76 mm mount and Bofors were removed after the war. A June 2002 photo shows that she's still fitted with the forward Phalanx as of that date; I can't tell if the aft mount is fitted or not. All the info is the same except that Saunders is the editor, not the author, you need to add the place of publication, Couldson, UK and Alexandria, Virginia, the isbn is 0-7106-2623-1, and the page number is 186. You forgot to add the page number to the other Jane's cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed original citation and updated with info from your 04-05 ed. --Admr Boltz 04:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link Gulf War and CH-124 helicopter on first use.
- Done. Most likely got the links turned around after rearranging the article. --Admr Boltz 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The crew section is kinda of confusing as it's not clearly stated that the officers and aircrew are included in the 365.
- Cleaned up. --Admr Boltz 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that she has a dental clinic is worth noting, but the clinic staff, not the entire crew is responsible for dental care on deployment. And, really, who else is the clinic going to take care of? Sure, civilians during a disaster, but normally, who else is there? That's what I meant when I said that it was understood who the clientele would be and didn't need to be specifically mentioned.
- Cleaned up. --Admr Boltz 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still think that it's pointless to mention that the clinic will serve RCN sailors, but whatever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - With out that mention it becomes a random sentence fragment. --Admr Boltz 04:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if the search was successful or not? How long did it last? That's really the best way to tie it to the cost figure, which is only mildly interesting as readers are likely quite willing to believe that operating a ship is very expensive.
- Asking someone with access to more Canadian news archives than I do right now for more details. --Admr Boltz 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added more. --Admr Boltz 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better, but can you find out how long they searched before the sailboat turned back?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Through both my Canadian friend's access and my access we have exhausted all available information on the rescue. --Admr Boltz 04:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the did the captain make his remark? His position, nautical captain, should be linked as should his rank, if he was actually a captain, as well.
- He was Captain and CO of the ship. Corrected factual error on their location. --Admr Boltz 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Were the destroyers Canadian? If so, I'd just say that she operated with two Canadian destroyers rather than "unidentified destroyers".
- They were Canadian, tweaked. --Admr Boltz 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Protecteur and her CH-124 helicopters Better phrased as Protecteur's CH-124 helicopters
- Fixed. --Admr Boltz 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How did the helicopters rescue an entire tanker? Or did you mean to say that they rescued a man from the tanker? Provide a little more story and context for this incident.
- Done. --Admr Boltz 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
dinner with the captain's No apostrophe, just the plural 's'.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Admr Boltz 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the other replenishment oilers in East Timor are important--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. --Admr Boltz 04:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deal with these last few issues and we'll be done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]