Talk:HMS Anson (79)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias ^talk 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

This is a bit out of my comfort zone: most of my edits and reviews are connected to sport, and generally those are limited to cricket. However, I've always been interested in Naval history, and the Anson, albeit the 1781 version, has some connections to my home town.
Refs 17 and 18 are raw links, try using {{Cite web}} to flesh them out.

Done

What makes uboat.net, naval-history.net and battleships-cruisers.co.uk reliable sources?

There have been discussions about this, but still it might be preferable to replace them with text sources if possible. I'll see what I have to hand.

They're not, I've added replacement citations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through the article with more specific comments later. Harrias ^talk 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The ship was originally to be named Jellicoe, after the Grand Fleet commander at the Battle of Jutland (1916), but she was renamed Anson in February 1940." – This information is not provided anywhere else in the article, and is thus not referenced. Really, this information should be stated later in the article, and referenced there.

Reduced what is said in the lead, introduced it more fully later, and referenced it.

In general the lead seems to go into a reasonably high level of detail, but given the short career of the ship, I suppose that is understandable. The procession of dates in the second paragraph is a bit tedious though.

I've tried to reword and reduce this bit

"home waters" isn't really encyclopedic language I don't think?

Changed to British waters

You link Operation Tungsten, but not Operation Husky.

Done

"Anson arrived back in home waters on 29 July 1946, and like her sister-ships she was placed in reserve and "mothballed", spending eight years in this condition. On 17 December 1957 she was purchased for scrap by Shipbreaking Industries, Ltd, Faslane." – Where does the eight years come from? 1946 to 1957 is eleven years?

Her peacetime career appears to have been omitted. Two independent clauses here, 1) she comes back to home waters by x. 2) She is mothballed for 8 years. I've split this up and reworded, hopefully it is clearer.

Construction

No definition, nor link is provided to explain what is meant by "was laid at": I don't really know what this means, presumably neither will most of the non-expert population.

I've linked this to the relevant part of the keel article, talking about the ceremony of the laying of the keel.

There is an apparent discrepancy between the dates provided in the text and the infobox: from the text: "The keel of Anson was laid at the Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson Shipyard on 20 July 1937." While from the infobox: "Laid down: 22 July 1937"

20 July seems to be correct from the couple of sources used. I'll double check later. Have standardised its use in the infobox and text.

Operational history

Why isn't Mackay linked? Presumably the link should be HMS Mackay (D70)

Linked

"On 29 January Convoy RA.52 departs.." – departs is the wrong tense: replace with departed.

fixed

You link the HMS in HMS Duke of York and Jamaica early in the second paragraph, but not in HMS Furious midway through the following paragraph.

Fixed

"Anson arrived back in home waters on 29 July, 1946 and.." – No need for the comma in the date.

Fixed

In the final paragraph you state that in 1946, along with her sister-ships, she was placed in reserve and "mothballed", and then in November 1949, was placed in reserve. I don't understand why or how she was placed in reserve in 1949, having already been placed in reserve?

From reading the original, what I think is meant here is in two parts 1) like her sister-ships she was mothballed and put into the reserve. 2) This specifically happened to Anson in November 1949. I've reduced the ambiguity I hope by just stating 'In November 1949 Anson was placed in reserve'

Where or what is Garloch?

Linked, its Gare Loch

References

I can see that you have provided "Chesneau (Conways)" to distinguish the two Chesneau references, but for clarity, it might be better to refer to them by year, specifying for both: ie Chesneau (1980) and Chesneau (2004).

Done

External links

The second link should be formatted to include the title in the link, as in the first.

Done

I'll place the article on hold while you deal with my comments. Harrias ^talk 15:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment on the Ships page, thought I'd stop by and address what I could of the basic points in the nominator's absence. Benea (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes, it looks pretty good now: would you be able to point me in the direction of the discussions regarding the sources used? If they have been accepted by WP:SHIPS / WP:MILHIST, then I'm happy to pass the article. Harrias ^talk 13:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the non-reliable sources. See what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those look good to me, thanks for getting together to get this done in the absence of the nominator, I'll pass the article now. Harrias ^talk 10:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]