Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMAS Sydney (R17)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HMAS Sydney (R17)

[edit]
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): -- saberwyn
Toolbox

With all the focus on battleships and battlecruisers, is been a while since a birdfarm has made an approach to the higher article ratings. To help remedy this, I am nominating the article for the Australian aircraft carrier/troopship HMAS Sydney (R17) for A-class review. Sydney was one of only three conventional aircraft carriers to operate in the Royal Australian Navy, and the only one to see wartime service (Korea as an aircraft carrier, Vietnam as a troop transport).

I believe that the article meets the standard for A-class articles...if not, a few alterations would make it so. It has been through a peer review, although only one editor was able to comment. All comments and constructive feedback are appreciated.

Please note that I prefer to intersperse my replies with your comments to keep ideas together...if you don't want this done to yours, please specify. -- saberwyn 09:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I see two {{cn}}'s, otherwise all references look good. No dablinks or external links problems, and alt text is present. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first "citation needed" is for the statement that Sydney won the 1950 Gloucester Cup: the statement is currently cited, but I want to find something more authoritative than Column 8, a newspaper readers' observations column. The second is for information I can 'prove' (through the use of images such as [1] and [2]) but have been unable to cite so far. There is also a {{clarification needed}} in regards to a "YE", which is listed as part of the ship's sensor suite, but I have no idea what it is. Any advice on how to deal with these would be great. -- saberwyn 06:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • The infobox is lacking some useful info like ship sponsor and ship power; the latter should also be added to the paragraph describing her.
    • I personally don't see the value of specifying the ship's sponsor in the infobox...it doesn't add much to the understanding of the ship and adds a line to an already-long infobox.
      • I won't sweat the sponsor, as I agree that it's really not that useful.
    • As for power, do you mean shaft horsepower/kilowatts for the turbines? I'll need to track that information down.
      • Yes, I suspect it's about 40,000 shp, but verify that figure.
        • Done
  • Be sure to distinguish between RN and RAN FAA squadrons more consistently since they have duplicate numbers.
    • RN and RAN squadrons do not duplicate, when the carriers were acquired by Australia, these previously-decommissioned squadrons were recreated specifically for RAN service, and the numbers were struck from future RN usage. All squadrons mentioned in the article are part of the RAN FAA for the 'duration' of the article.
      • I did not know that, interesting. Then make a note as to which ones are British; simply calling it a Naval Air Squadron or somesuch isn't much of a clue.
  • What were the drawbacks to her relieving HMS Thesus?
    • The source does not specify, all that is stated is: "There is some evidence that consideration was given to sending Sydney to add to the naval air strength [following problems with Theseus] but the drawbacks were so overwhelming that the idea was dropped."
      • I think that Thesus may have had problems with her catapults, but I don't know for sure.
  • What do you mean by UP 28 when referring to the helicopter? Serial number, type designation, what?
    • Visual identifier painted on the side (see File:Sikorsky S-51 UP-28.jpg). What would be the best way to make this clear?
      • Describing it in the caption works fine, IMO.
  • What do you mean when you state that Sydney provided an air patrol for the carriers of TF 95.8? A defensive carrier air patrol? If so then clarify and link it.
    • I've changed it to read "combat air patrol" in all instances, but I will need to track down the source and be 100% sure that this is the intention. Linked in first occurance.
      • Yeah, combat air patrol, that's what I meant ;-)
  • What Task Element? No prior reference to provide context.
    • I don't know what you mean. The phrase "Task Element" appears three times, the first two also give the identifier (Task Element 95.11), while the third does not give the identifier, but is in the same paragraph as the second mention.
      • I must have missed them as I noted Task Force, but not Task Element.
  • Couple of awkwardly written sentences have been marked as such.
    • They have been rephrased. How do they look now?
      • Good.

Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC) And I think that Graeme's right; I'm pretty sure that a YE is some sort of TACAN beacon. My issues have been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly for your comments. -- saberwyn 09:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

THe pennant number crash in the opening sentence could use some attention, as could a bit of explanation for the pennants when the RAN go more US.
Any suggestions on how to format it? I don;t think there's been a recent warship A/FA where the ship carried multiple numbers during her career.
The change to a US-based system is explained at the relevant point (1969, in the Vietnam War section)... the information there is all I can reliably source.
I think that YE is a homing beacon aerial, US equipment.
In that case, I've stripped it out, as a homing beacon isn't really part of a radar suite.

GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • I would suggest that one of the pictures in the armament, sensors, and aircraft section be removed since at larger setting having these two pictures so close together could create issues for the text.
      • Bofors pic removed.
    • I would also suggest that you link to Santa Clause in the article text, while this is a well know thing in the west, other readers may not grasp that immediately. This is just a suggestion, but it could be worth looking into.
      • Done
    • "...and a RAN pilot undergoing landing qualifications aboard HMS Illustrious on 17 March 1949 crash-landed..." Crash landed where? On the carrier, near the carrier, into the carrier? See if you can nail it down.
      • Attempting to land on the carrier. Hit the deck too hard, bounced over the arrester barrier, and came to a stop in the deck park, after totalling four other aircraft. Tweaked to hopefully clarify.
    • Please address the citation needed tag in the 1941-1959 section (last paragraph).
      • I've replaced it with a hidden note explaining my concerns. If I haven't found anything by the time I nominate this for FA, I'm going to remove the claim entirely.
    • You have a red link for the term bombardment spotting, may I suggest linking to the term artillery observer as a substitute for the article? It may or may not be appropriate for the article, but I wanted to suggest it.
    • "The rescue was the longest helicopter rescue transit over North Korean territory during the war, and Sikorsky pilot received both the British Distinguished Service Medal and the United States Navy Cross: the only instance of the two medals being awarded for the same action." By the only instance to you mean the only instance of USN and RN personal receiving the same award, or do you mean the only instance ever in recorded military history? It may be worth clarifying the point here, as the statement could be seen to go either way.
      • The only time the DSM and the Navy Cross were given to the same man for the same event. Tweaked to clarify... now reads "the only instance of these two medals being awarded to the same person for the same action".
    • I'm puzzled by the repeated returns to Seasbo, while I understand that it operated as a FARRP for the carrier I'm at lost as to why the ship could not be resupplied underway. IF attached to the US 7th Fleet then a USN tender could have done this, unless there was a mitigating reason for not using supply ships to refuel and rearm Sydney. Can you explain this?
      • Not without specific references to sources. From what I've picked up from elsewhere, in the 50's, RN-designed ships were still fine-tuning the whole "replenishment at sea" concept. There would also have been major incompatibilities USN and RN/RAN equipment. Plus, ten days in port means shore leave.
    • Address the citation needed tag in the fast troop transport section please.
      • As I said to the_ed17 above, I can prove it, but I can't cite it. I'm removing the statement until I can find an explicit source for it.
    • "On 1 March 1967, the ensign flown by RAN ships was changed from the British White Ensign to the Australian White Ensign" Why the change? The article doesn't say, but I am curious to know.
      • Until 1967, the RAN and the RN both flew the British White Ensign. When the Vietnam War rolled around, Australia was involved, but the United Kingdom wasn't. The thought was that Aussie warships could be mistaken for British warships, with all the resulting diplomatic hullabaloo. Around the same time, Australian national pride in the RAN and the general population prompted pressuring for Australian warships to have a unique identifying symbol. These led to the design of a new ensign (pretty much the normal Australian flag with the blue background and white stars reversed), it got the royal thumbs up in 1966, and entered use in 1967.
    • On the whole, a good article, but work still needs done before the coveted "A" can be awarded to the bird farm :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright then, I'm happy. Good luck with the cn tags, I am sure you will find the material if you look hard enough for it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that this highly detailed article easily meets the A class criteria (disclaimer: I added a few odds and ends to it). My only substantive suggestion for further improvements is to read through the article and remove repeated material - I've spotted and removed some, but there may be more. Other comments are:
    • The article states that Sydney returned to Sydney on 18 May 1966 and then departed on 25 April - I suspect this should be 25 May.
    • 'xth Battalion RAR' isn't a common way of naming these units - I'd suggest that you stick to the more common 'x RAR' (eg, 1 RAR, 5 RAR) after introducing this acronym for 1 RAR.
    • The article also refers to 'With 7th Battalion' and 'with 2nd Battalion'; this should be 'with 7 RAR' and 'with 2 RAR' respectively (and wherever else similar text crops up) Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/HMAS_Sydney_(R17)&oldid=1138360635"