HMS Anson (79) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 25, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 19, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that HMS Centurion pretended to be HMS Anson during Operation Vigorous?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War II / Cold War / Operation Majestic Titan 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 articles Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force World War II task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

From a quick read through, I spotted two inaccuracies in this article:

• "Anson was decommissioned for refit in June 1944 and did not return to the fleet until March 1944" - I presume that the second date should be March 1945?
  • Oops, don't know how I missed that. Thurgate (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "She left Sydney on 15 August for Hong Kong, where, she accepted the surrender of the Japanese forces occupying Hong Kong and deployed a garrison there for protection and to help clear up the last Japanese resistance and reinstate public services" - was there really any Japanese resistance in Hong Kong? - this seems rather unlikely given that there wasn't any elsewhere from a few days after the Japanese surrender was announced. It should also be noted here that she was part of a force of ships which took part in this operation - the current text strongly implies that she was operating by herself.
  • Deleted the Japanese resistance bit, and added the ship that was with her. Thurgate (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence fragment "Having never fired her guns against an enemy ship" seems out of place and the sequence of events which followed her return to the UK in 1946 is confusing as the two short paras on this seem to not be in a chronological sequence. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the problem section and re-ordered the para's see if you think it works now. Also thanks for having a look at the article! Thurgate (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the light AA armament is simply incorrect, see Chesneau, p. 60. The service section is awfully cursory and needs more details like which convoys she covered, etc. Though I'm not sure that this is enough to deny B-class. This really needs to be fleshed out for anything higher, though. Use Konstam as little as possible!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Once I get my hands on R & R I can sort out the AA section, and I'll take a look at Rowher's book for all the convoy details etc. Thurgate (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessed now that you've fixed the AA problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Anson (79)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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]

The statement that Anson was in Tokyo Bay for the surrender of Japan on 2 September 1945 is sourced to Chesneau, but I think he is in error. Anson is not listed on the official report detailing the ships present in the bay at the surrender, because Anson was at this time in Hong Kong, nearly 3,000 km away. She arrived with Cecil Harcourt and his fleet off Hong Kong on 29 August, Harcourt flying his flag in Swiftsure while Anson was the flagship of Charles Daniel. They entered the harbour on 30 August, and remained there during the transition of power which resulted in the offical signing of the surrender on 16 September. She remained the Hong Kong guardship until October, when she sailed to Tokyo Bay to relieve King George V as the Tokyo guardship and as the flagship of the Fleet's First Battle Squadron. Anson was in turn relieved by Duke of York in December, and returned to Sydney for a refit. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]