Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Duke of York (17)

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.

HMS Duke of York (17)

Nominator(s): Thurgate (talk)

Third ship of the King George V class built, entering service in 1941 and seeing action throughout the remainder of World War II. She was heavily involved in actions against the German battleship Scharnhorst and significantly contributed to Scharnhorst's eventual sinking. Following the war she remained in service till April 1949 and was eventually sold for scrap on 18 May 1957. Special thanks to Sturmvogel_66 and Parsecboy who both made significant additions to the article and finally thanks to AustralianRupert for his numerous copy-edits which helped get the article to the standard it is at now. Thurgate (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but this article is rather under-developed and doesn't meet the A class criteria I think. While its coverage of the ship's history is broad, it contains some gaps and lacks detail. Some of the grammar is also difficult to follow. Here are my comments:

"During this period the Admiralty set in motion plans for the construction of a new battleship class. Which resulted in the King George V-class battleships being born." - the second sentence here seems to be a minor off-shoot of the first, and "being born" is vague.
"Their armament was limited because when the original plans had been drawn up as early as 1933 the Washington Treaty was still in effect, and because of the second London Treaty in March 1936 which limited the maximum caliber of new battleship guns to 14-inch (356 mm)." - this isn't well written
"However, within in a few months it became apparent that no other countries were sticking to the agreement and as a result it was too late to change the designs of the King George V-class battleships meaning the class were the only ships built at the time that adhered to the treaty." - ditto. This is hard to follow.
- Thurgate, I have had a go at rewording the above. Please check that I haven't changed any of your meaning. I am a bit short of time at the moment, but will try to come back later and help out, if I can. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Construction' section has nothing about how this ship's construction was authorised. For instance, when was approval given to build her, how many ships in the class preceded her, etc.
What impact did the start of the war have on the ship's construction? Did it continue as planned or was it accelerated or delayed?
Can anything be said about the process of crewing the ship and preparing her for combat?
"At full speed Duke of York had a range of 3,100 nautical miles (5,700 km; 3,600 mi) at 27 knots (50 km/h; 31 mph)" - was this before or after her fuel capacity was increased? Her cruising range should also be noted as this is more meaningful than her range at top speed.
Some context for the ship's role in escorting Arctic convoys is needed (eg, that she was assigned to the Home Fleet, and did so to protect the convoys from German battleships)
"In late April, King George V accidentally rammed the destroyer Punjabi and sustained significant damage; Duke of York was sent to relieve her" - where was she sent? You should also note that Punjabi sank as a result of this accident.
"Duke of York came under air attack by Italian aircraft, but these were relatively small scale" - what was 'relatively small scale'? (and relative to what?)
"Duke of York resumed her status as flagship from 14 May 1943 " - flagship of what?
What's an "armoured ship"?
"At 16:55 a 14-inch (356 mm) shell had silenced turret Anton, while another struck at the waterline aft." - you need to specify that this was on Scharnhorst
"Following her sinking, and the retreat of most of the other German heavy units from Norway, the need to maintain powerful forces in British home waters was diminished" - this is a bit dubious. Tirpitz was the main threat to the Arctic Convoys, and she wasn't put out of action until later in 1944
Did the ship really do so little in 1944 that it can be summarised in half a paragraph?
"But a problem in Malta with the electrical circuitry delayed her." - this isn't well written, and is vague. What was the problem, and how long was she delayed for?
Did Duke of York really dock in Sydney on 29 July and manage to be off Japan by 9 August? That's a remarkably fast turnaround in Sydney and voyage.
" TF 37 and three American carrier task forces conducted a series of air raids on Japan starting on 9 August." - this was a continuation of a major offensive which had begun in July (see Air raids on Japan#Naval air attacks)
What did the ship do in her last three years of active service? This is currently covered in a sentence!
The article is rather-under illustrated. The Imperial War Museum and Australian War Memorial's online databases should have some copyright-free images of the ship you can use.
Can anything at all be said about the ship's crew? They're not mentioned in the article once.
"Gibralter" - spelling Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments In addition to those mentioned above.

Duplicate links tool reveals four overlinkings: Scapa Flow, HMS Victorious, Operation Husky, Aft
Lead and "Description" section have several small paragraphs which should be merged or expanded into larger graphs.
"Armament" section -- "Training arcs were: turret "A", 286 degrees; turret "B", 270 degrees; turret "Y", 270 degrees." This isn't a sentence.
You refer to the turrets as "Anton" and "Bruno" in the history section. Are these the same turrents later established as A, B, and Y? Might want to clarify the phonetic alphabet terminology here, since it might be confusing.
There are several references to time which need a corresponding time zone to make them more clear.
I agree with the assessment above of "Post war." Unless the ship was literally parked at the same place for five years something should be added about what it did.
"Breyer" ref isn't used in the footnotes.
Only two of the "Chesneau" footnotes specify which of the two sources it is referring to. Also, probably best to distinguish them by year, as is done in FN7, as opposed to FN6.

Otherwise, the piece is off to a good start. Happy to support after Nick-D's comments and my comments are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, unfortunately, as not enough progress has been made toward fixing this article's comments for several weeks. —Ed!^(talk) 16:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did some more copy editing on this tonight and wasn't sure of this:

"At 16:55 a 14-inch (356 mm) shell had silenced turret Anton, while another struck at the waterline aft". Was this on Scharnhorst or Duke of York? The text doesn't seem clear to me. I don't have any of the sources, can you please clarify? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this seems a little inconsistent: (in the lead) "Duke of York was involved in Operations Camera and Governor ", but in the body of the article "Camera and Governor of Norway". Was it "Governor" or "Governor of Norway"? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2012 (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.