The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 06:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): SoLando (Talk)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I believe the article satisfies the requsiite criteia to be considered for A-class; however, I', likely oblivious too any prose issues the might have (or might be identified ;-). Outstanding concern that I have is source-related: note 42 and note 59; although there is explicit attribution, I'm skeptical that their inclusion would be accepted at an FAC. I have replaced naval-history.net with alternative sources due to enduring doubts at MILHIST about its reliability (pretty onerous task!) SoLando (Talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry, but I don't think that this article is at A class standard yet.
  • No problem. I hope the issues raised can be addressed sufficiently to persuade you to support the article ;-).
  • The prose needs some work and much of the lead is confusing. Some examples are:
    • "she served in the Second World War, with the Mediterranean Fleet from 1945 until her decommission" - this needs to be be re-worded as something like "she served in the Second World War in the Pacific, Atlantic and Mediterranean. Following the war she was a unit of the Mediterranean Fleet from 1945 until she was decommissioned"
      • EnigmaMcmxc has since edited the lede.
    • "the first warship to do so at the shipyards for a year" - "the first warship to be launched at that shipyard for a year" perhaps?
      • How does "Liverpool became the first cruiser launched at the Fairfield shipyard since Norfolk and the first warship to be launched there for a year" sound?
        • That's a bit wordy, and does it need to be in the article? One major warship a year per shipyard doesn't seem an unusual rate of production for the era. I'd suggest cutting this outright unless it has particular significance. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The distinction of being the first cruiser to be launched at Fairfield in nearly a decade does probably merit inclusion...I've deleted the other. SoLando (Talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains unnecessary detail. For instance, the themes of the speeches given at her launching ceremony and an incorrect story about her commissioning date in the Times don't add much value.
    • The ceremonial details are probably expendable - removed. I would prefer to at least retain the Emerald element as it does have some validity - no less legitimate than noting X battalion relieved Y battalion. That said, it would probably benefit from the context provided by the (apparently) planned original date of commission as Emerald left the station in '38. What do you think?
      • It seems to have been removed now. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains seemingly unnecessary provisos - for instance, why does it need to be said that a shot was "reportedly" fired over Asama Maru's bow, that the official history of Australian in WW2 "claimed" something and that "The Admiralty announced" the number of casualties when she was attacked? Surely these facts can now be said to be true or false?
    • The first passage is extracted from a contemporary report...while it is apparent that Liverpool did indeed fire a warning shot, there appears to be no "recent" source that confirms that, for whatever reason. I've dropped the "claimed", replaced it with "said"...that was me being overly cautious. Is that ok? Again, there is no recent source that provides casualty figures for the attack, hence this passage. I've reworded.
      • That seems better Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the journal of a midshipman a reliable source? His claim that the petrol explosion on 14 October 1940 was equivalent to "ten torpedoes" is plainly wrong - there wouldn't have been much left of the ship if she'd suffered such an explosion.
    • I do admit to being apprehensive about the use of a primary source, but the contemporary journal is mostly used for non-controversial detail: Carley floats being prepared, the arrival of certain ships, the burial of the dead. In my personal opinion, it's an insightful contemporary account that has been accurately represented in the text, without any interpretation or synth'. In regards to the intensity of the explosion, it's not a claim per se, but a subjective observation as to how the explosion felt to him at the time. I agree that it might be interpreted differently by some readers. What would you recommend? Omit?
      • Yes. Midshipmen are, by definition, among the least experienced (and often among the youngest) sailors on their ship, so their experiences shouldn't be treated as reliable sources in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've excised the apparently ambiguous material, but the remainder is arguably legitimate. He would clearly have been aware of the preparation of the floats and arrival of Gloucester, would have observed or been told of the burial of the dead (and their number), while the RDF claim is explicitly attributed to him. SoLando (Talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement that Liverpool began "two-year period of refitting and maintenance at Rosyth that did not end until after the war" in August 1942 is contradicted by the later statement that the refit was completed in July 1943. It would seem that the ship was then placed in reserve as she couldn't be manned rather than that work continued on her. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damage repairs were completed in 1943. Rearranged order of sentences for greater clarity. I'll reread the article later tonight, however, if there are still prose issues it will need a copyeditor with a fresh perspective. Thanks! SoLando (Talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My above concerns are now addressed; great work. It's also great to see so much effort being put into an article on a cruiser - these were important ships for their day. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
  • Citation # 45 (The Shipbuilder and Marine Engine-Builder, 1946, p. 500) is completely in italics - should this be so? It doesn't look right to me;

Grah. Formatted. Very sharp eyes! SoLando (Talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • the titles in the Reference list should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. For instance Roskill "The war at sea, 1939-1945" should be "The War at Sea, 1939-1945" (there are other examples that also need tweaking e.g. Connell, Edwards, Geoge, Haggie, Hague, Leggett, Smith 1981);

Grah. Formatted. Overlooked due to C & P conveniance ;-)

• • I think it is usually common when using the short citation style just to use surnames, rather than using surnames and initials/first names. E.g. see Wikipedia:CITESHORT#Shortened footnotes. I'd suggest removing them as the first names/initials clutter up the short citations and IMO defeat the purpose which is to enable the reader to quickly determine the source;

That is true. It's a discretionary style I became quite accustomed to over the years on here and it has, I guess, become ingrained. I'll reformat to conform to the currently prevailing style...it will probably take much longer to adjust, though ;-). SoLando (Talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Citation # 40 (Read, A.D. (1949), Transactions of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London: Royal Institution of Naval Architects, p. 100) does not appear to conform with the citation style of the rest of the article. It also does not appear to be included in the References section. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a quandry when it comes to this journal's style, in that it's from a limited preview GB search. Will move. Thanks! SoLando (Talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: before taking to FAC (if that is where you are thinking of heading), you might consider adding OCLC numbers to the works in the References section that are too old for ISBNs. These can be found by searching here: [1]. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now Supporting, good job. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Questions Opposing until the concerns are dealt with ... just a little bit more needed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will respond once you've completed your review. Don't want to disrupt any editing! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 17:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "transporting 1,200 reinforcements, airmen, and RAF provisions": Are the airmen included in the total of 1200? If not, do you have an estimate for the number of airmen? - Dank (push to talk)

The estimate in Titterton seems...ambiugous and could easily be exclusive to non-RAF reinforcements. If so, then then number of RAF personnel isn't specified. SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, removed the number; if someone really needs the number, then we'll try to find a better source. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "protected from the 29th" is perfectly good BritEng for "protected starting on the 29th", but in AmEng that means you're being protected from some unit called the 29th. I changed to "starting on". - Dank (push to talk)
• "Liverpool's losses in the attack had amounted to three officers and 27 ratings killed and 35 wounded.": "killing ratings" means something completely different over here. Can we use a term everyone will understand? - Dank (push to talk)

The alternative would be be "sailors" or "seamen", but that might in itself be deemed confusing when following "officers". Would you agree? SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "3 officers and 27 crewmen killed and 35 crewmen wounded"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made the edit but you can change it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you've got 5 citations to "The Journal of Midshipman W. P. Hayes, RCN". You'll have trouble with the FAC requirement (which we're still working out and getting tripped up over) of a "highly reliable" source. My personal position is that we should be more lenient with certain kinds of unpublished material, and if it's true as it says that all the midshipman kept diaries which were often checked and compared against each other, that's a good argument for plausibility, but you're going to need more than plausibility for FAC. Have there been any discussions about this source? - Dank (push to talk) Striking this and the previous mentions of FAC because I might have misread your introductory comments ... FAC's a headache, and I'm more than happy to focus on just doing what's needed for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The group that included Liverpool positioned itself west of Bear Island, in the Barents Sea, as cover and to rendezvous with the cruiser.": "Cover" means to me that there was artillery on the island that could engage the enemy if the group was attacked, is that right? - Dank (push to talk)

In this instance, the term is synonymous with "screen" and "escort". The latter is used throughout the article, so cover was chosen for variation and to reflect the source used. SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the previous sentence says "joined a group of warships that was to have escorted Trinidad". Removed "as cover"; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "... and was used by the Senior Officer, Reserve Fleet, and his staff.": If this is the same thing as "the Senior Officer of the Reserve Fleet and his staff", that would be better. - Dank (push to talk)

This would have been an official title. The alternative might convey the suggestion that he was the commander-in-chief of the fleet. SoLando (Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added quote marks: "Senior Officer, Reserve Fleet" and his staff. We need either that or a link to avoid the ambiguity. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What's an "accommodation ship"? If that's not something official or customary, could we just say that the ship served as accommodations? - Dank (push to talk)
• Okay done with the copyediting, your turn. In many cases I was probably changing perfectly good British English into something that I think, I hope, everyone understands, but correct me if I'm wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - some minor comments, mainly concerning grammar:
  • The lead is a little choppy in places and a number of short sentences could probably be joined. Specifically I would suggested rewording "An aerial attack on 14 June 1942 during Operation Harpoon proved to be the ship's final combat of the war. For the duration of the conflict, Liverpool underwent repairs and refitting at Rosyth, Scotland." to "An aerial attack on 14 June 1942 during Operation Harpoon proved to be the ship's final combat of the war and for the remainder of the conflict, she underwent repairs and refitting at Rosyth, Scotland."
  • Some minor grammatical issues IMO. For instance: "Her captain transferred in late October to the battleship Ramillies; command of Liverpool was assumed by Captain A.L. Poland on the 27th." This could be reworded easily to something like: "Her captain transferred in late October to the battleship Ramillies and command of Liverpool was assumed by Captain A.L. Poland on the 27th."
  • Use of the phrase 'would not be' in "The ship's presence would not be disclosed until September when the US Navy Department released a list identifying 12 ships situated in various ports" seems incorrect (in terms of tense), and could be changed to "was not disclosed".
    • I disagree, although "was not disclosed" is also fine. This tense is used by many good writers, I see it all the time, but only in the middle of a narrative series where you want to jump ahead briefly and then return to the previous point in time. I agree that it's a good idea to take a hard look when this tense is used because it's often misused, but Solando used it correctly both times here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries mate, I'm no expert anyway. It just sounded wrong to me . Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again the phrase 'would not be' in "Although repairs at Rosyth were completed by July 1943, sufficient personnel would not be assigned to Liverpool until late 1945" could be changed to "were not".
    • Same here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Liverpool returned to service in October 1945 to join the 15th Cruiser Squadron of the Mediterranean Fleet, serving mostly as a flagship." could be reworded as "Liverpool returned to service in October 1945, joining the 15th Cruiser Squadron of the Mediterranean Fleet, in which it served mostly as a flagship." (or something similar).
  • "more than 12 months elapsed before the vessel had been completely dismantled." could be reworded as "more than 12 months elapsed before the vessel was completely dismantled"
  • Overall the article is a little repetative, as you use 'Liverpool' in too many places. You can vary this by using terms such as 'the ship' or 'she' etc. Anotherclown (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - looks like all of my concerns have been taken care of. An excellent article in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. 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.