Talk:HMS Cicala

HMS Cicala was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 14, 2023	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 1, 2021.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that HMS Cicala was commanded at the 1941 Battle of Hong Kong by a one-armed veteran of the 1916 Battle of Jutland?

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War I / 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

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
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that HMS Cicala was commanded at the 1941 Battle of Hong Kong by a one-armed veteran of the 1916 Battle of Jutland? "had first seen action in the 1914-18 War - as had its present captain, Lieutenant Commander John Boldero, as a fifteen-year-old at Jutland ... losing his right arm in a collision on a night exercise in April 1941" from: Luard, Tim (1 December 2011). Escape from Hong Kong: Admiral Chan Chak’s Christmas Day Dash, 1941. Hong Kong University Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-988-8083-76-3.
- ALT1:... that HMS Cicala survived 60 aerial bombing attacks during the 1941 Battle of Hong Kong before being badly damaged and scuttled? "over the previous two weeks she had proved a constant menace to the Japanese and had survived more than sixty bombing attacks ... Cicala finally succumbed ... abandoned to the sea ... MTB 09 hastened the sinking with depth charges" from: Luard, Tim (1 December 2011). Escape from Hong Kong: Admiral Chan Chak’s Christmas Day Dash, 1941. Hong Kong University Press. pp. 60–61. ISBN 978-988-8083-76-3.

Reviewed: First credit from Template:Did you know nominations/Engineers' Club Building

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 07:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

New article is 5,512 characters long and nominated one day after creation. No copyvios detected (AGF books which can't go through Dup detector re. close paraphrasing issues). Article is well-sourced. Main hook is 115 characters long (ALT1 is 127); both are under 200 character max. and are interesting. Refs 7 (verifying the hook and ALT 1) is a reliable source. QPQ done. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

builder question

Other references give Barclay Curle as the builder. naval-history.net Clyde-built ships. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GraemeLeggett, thanks for that. I think the source I used must be wrong as I've found others, more reliable, that state Barclay Curle so I've updated the article - Dumelow (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Cicala/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images appropriately licensed.
If you look closely at the forward gun mount of the ship in this photo, you can see that it's different than that of the aft gun. That's because it's QF Mk II gun on an anti-aircraft mount. Cicala was one of four Insect-class gunboats that remained home for the duration of the war. All of them received this modification to combat the Zeppelin threat and it was removed after the war. Basic details are available in Roger Banfil-Cook's River Gunboats: An Illustrated Encyclopedia ISBN 978-1-59114-614-8 It's also got more details on what the ship was up to early in its career. If you can't borrow or buy it; I can add the necessary material myself. And there more detailed works on the ship's activities in Russia available.
You've given the article a very good foundation, but there's a lot of meat missing. There's a lot of nautical jargon that's missing the necessary links in both the main body and the infobox. You need exact dates of construction in both places as well. You can use the GA-quality HMS Grasshopper (T85) article as a reference and as a source for the necessary links.
I'm not sure that I trust Konstam on technical details as Banfil-Cook specifically states that the Insects were entirely built without armor, although I'm not sure that he'd call the half-inch plating that Konstam specifies as armor at all. I'd check the relevant volume of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships or H.P. Lenton's British and Empire Warships of the Second World War to see what they say. Again, I have both if you can't get copies of your own.
Ping me whenever you've dealt with all of this; you've got a fair amount of work ahead of you, but I'm certainly not in any hurry and can hold this review as long as you want still work on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66, thanks for the review and information; it's clear I'm missing quite a lot of detail. I can't remember how I came at this article but it is outside my usual area and I don't have access to most of the sources needed. I think it best to withdraw this for now; maybe at some point I'll pick it up again - Dumelow (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]