Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/HMAS Sydney (R17)

HMAS Sydney (R17)

Its been about a year since we had an aircraft carrier make the approach to FA, so I think we're about due for another one: namely the Royal Australian Navy birdfarm HMAS Sydney (R17).

The following issues are known, and any advice on solving them would be appreciated:

The sections "1952-1958", "Fast Troop Transport (1958–1965)", and "1972–1973" need to be expanded (the latter most of all) or reworked into other parts of the article.
Conversely, the sections dealing with the ship's Korean War and Vietnam War operations are on the long side: suggestions on how to trim down or split up these sections would be great.
There are a couple of {{clarify}} and {{citation needed}} tags still in the article: I need to explain the former in a little more detail, and find more reliable and appropriate sources than the ones given in the latter cases.

Any other observations or comments towards improving the article are more than welcome.

I request permission to intersperse my replies with your comments... if you wish for my replies to be kept separate, please specify. -- saberwyn 05:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

This is an excellent article. As is common for your articles on warships, it's very detailed and you've made good use of the available free images. My suggestions for further improvements are:

I think that the length of the coverage of the ship's war service is fine. This is similar to the weight given to it in the sources I've seen, and all the material is directly relevant to the ship.
The fact that the Viscountess Astor's role in laying down the ship was ceremonial should be specified (eg, that she presided over the ceremony, or whatever)
- Done.
The statement that "These two carriers were the closest to completion at the end of World War II, and were finished without major deviation from the wartime construction plans." needs a cite
- Having a bit of trouble there. The problem is I know it (or, more accurately, I know that the other three were heavily upgraded), but I can't find/refind a blatant cite for it.
Does the complement of 1,100 include her air group?
- I assume so, but will need to confirm. Update: The info came from an edition of Jane's Fighting Ships I have access to at the maritime museum, and/or Cassells The Capital Ships at a semi-local library. I won't have the opportunity to access either until next week.
  - I just checked Gillett's Australian & NZ Warships since 1946 book, and he provides a figure of 1343, but doesn't break this down at all (p. 20). Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's a bit of variance among the sources as to the exact ship's company, but the numbers in the article include the CAG.
Some of the article's text is written in the passive voice (for example, "20th CAG embarked again during August, with Sydney performing exercises" - this could be 'The 20th CAG embarked again in August, and Sydney conducted exercises')
- I'm probably too close to the text to see problems like this. I'll put it up at Logistics for copyediting.
What drawbacks lead to Sydney not going to Korea in 1950?
- The source does not specify: "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."
What's meant by saying that the strikes near Wonsan were "later revealed to be a demonstration for British admiral Sir Guy Russell"?
- Source says "...demonstration for the benefit of..." and only elaborates to the point that those on Sydney didn't know that they were flying those missions for that puropse. I don't think that info adds that much, particularly without elaboration as to what was demonstrated, so I'm dropping it.
The section on Korea would benefit from the inclusion of a map of the area
- How's that? Images in the section may need a little jigging to fit. I've also put in a location map for Vietnam with Vung Tau marked
The ship's second deployment to Korea is buried in half a paragraph - I think that it warrants its own paragraph (at least)
- The sources I've used treat the second Korean deployment in about that much detail...its usually a throwaway sentance saying "Sydney went back from [date] to [date] to enforce the UN armistace." If I find more, I'll elaborate.
Sydney's role as the RAN's training ship during her period as a transport could be given greater emphasis
- As above, most sources I've seen treat the training role in a single sentance.
Jeparit and Boonaroo were only requisitioned for part of their service - they made most of their voyages to and from Vietnam as civilian vessels under charter
- Dropped "requesitioned" from that sentance.
The greatly improved turn around times at Vũng Tàu were due to upgrades to Sydneys cargo-handling facilities (the installation of more/better cranes and LCVPs), as well as practice. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to say "practice and equipment upgrades". ~~I don't want to elaborate more without a specific cite. I think there's something in Grey that will do it, but again, at least a week before I can access it.~~ How does it look now? -- saberwyn 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That looks great, and I just added a little bit of material which I've been meaning to add for the last few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any chance you could use that source to elaborate a little on that refit? The relevant part is in the middle of the eighth paragraph, which starts "On 17 January 1968..." -- saberwyn 10:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, done. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed some of your points...more to come. -- saberwyn 10:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]