Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Cardiff (D108)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:07, 17 May 2008.

---

HMS Cardiff (D108)

Self Nominator: The main issue raised in this article's "A" class review, was the need for a copyedit, this has since be done by Maralia (it's also had a peer review since then). I'm going AFK now, but I'll next be able to reply at approx 17:00 (UTC) tomorrow, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.wingweb.co.uk/
  • http://www.historyofwar.org/index.html
  • http://www.wrecksite.eu/wrecksite.aspx
  • http://www.falklandswar.org.uk/
  • http://www.naval-history.net/
  • http://www.harpoonhq.com/?page_id=2
  • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/index.htm
  • http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/index.htm
• Current ref 34 "Morgan, David (2007) "Hostile Skies" ... is WC2H 9EA the publisher? If so who the heck are they? or is Phoenix the publisher? I've never heard of either.
• Okay, while they aren't unreliable, I'm not sure that using either "The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness Naval Battles" and "The Complete Idiots Guide to the Gulf War" are exactly the highest quality source either.
• This ref Current ref 57 "Access World News - Document Display" requires login and a password. If it's an archive, it needs the original publication information. It's certainly lacking something about the referencing, it doesn't say why it should be reliable.

Otherwise, sources look good. Some of the above questioned sites are probably reliable, they are just way outside my field of study. Better to question than assume. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WC2H 9EA is a London post (ZIP) code, of course (I'm impressed that there is an article on WC codes).--Grahame (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys thanks for commenting;

• I'm a little unsure what you want me to do, shall I replace all the sources that come from the websites you listed above?
• Phoenix is the publisher (here's a little piccy: File:Phoenix Publishers.jpg ), at the moment the ref text says "

Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments regarding criterion three:
  • Image:Argentine Boeing 707 crew.jpg and Image:Canberra Bomber B-108.jpeg need verifiable sources per WP:IUP. How can we verify when they were first published in Argentina?
  • Image:HMS Cardiff rusted name.jpg: image's source page explicitly says "All rights reserved". What is the basis for the claim that this has been released as GFDL?
  • I'm suspicious of Image:SAS Parachute down to HMS Cardiff.jpg and Image:Lynx 335 HMS Cardiff March 1982.jpg (fortunate that we had a Wikipedian serving on her in 1982; same uploader as aforementioned Argentinian images listing self as source; etc.), but I don't have time to scour Flickr or Google images. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The rusted name pic was taken by Griffiths911 then given to that website (it's run by former crew). He also took the Lynx and SAS pics, although obviously he didn't take the Boeing and Canberra pics (he was on Cardiff at the time) he was sent them by an Argentine friend and then he sent them to me (hence why he isn't called "author" but "source" instead), I didn't know about the published thing. The Canberra pic must be over 25 yrs old though, as it was destroyed during the war. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can vouch for the Lynx and SAS images, that's enough for me. The "rusted pic", however, should have further support given the contradictory implication present on the website; it would be best if Griffiths911 provided an email to OTRS. Publishing and existing are different notions; there's no doubt it existed in 1982, but we need to support the claim that it was published at least 20 years ago. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just remove the rusted name pic and get Ken to add it at Commons under public domain. Don't know about the Boeing and Canberra pics though, I can't find them on Google, what should I do? I'll next be able to reply at approx 12:00 (UTC) Ryan4314 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They should be removed, or at least commented out if efforts to confirm the PD claims are still ongoing. WP:IUP aside, Wikipedia, and especially featured articles, just shouldn't be representing images as PD without underlying support/evidence. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Excellent work, Ryan. Very brief comment: does the "Early career" sub-section have potential for expansion? The sub-section's title also seems awkward but, hey, that's subjective. SoLando (Talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I could expand it using this source, although I worry that anything I add might mess up the flow, but I'll give it a shot :) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to go AFK for a bit, I can probably attempt this at about approx 18:00 (UTC) tomorrow. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, would you mind giving it a quick check over though please. I'm on a different computer and I don't have my tools, like spell checker for example :s Ryan4314 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given it a copyedit. Great work. SoLando (Talk) 23:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments I gave this another quick copyedit pass. A few issues:

• "where she shot down the last enemy aircraft of the conflict" - 'enemy' is needlessly POV; just 'Argentine', please.
• "Cardiff spent the rest of June acting as the Local Anti Air Warfare Coordinator around the islands." - Why capitalize this role?
• "In the same year she participated in the US Navy Fleet Battle Exercise as an integree to the Digital Fires Network." - Is this meant to be intégrée? Whatever it is, please use something less obscure. Also, what is 'Digital Fires Network'?

Maralia (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Will do - (add) Just for the record the "enemy" bit wasn't me being malicious against Argentina, I believe my motive at the time, was to try and make clear that the kill she made was actually against an enemy aircraft, as opposed to the other 50% of her "kills" that was against a friendly aircraft unfortunately :(
• In the source it's referred to as "LAAWC", shall I put LAAWC up in brackets?
• Gets me! LOL I didn't actually add this bit, I haven't a clue about it either, I'll get the guy who added it to simplify it

I'll make a start on these tonight, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done the first two, the user hasn't replied to me re; the "Digital Fires Network", so I'll try and simplify it (just need some time to research it), didn't want you all to think I've stalled or something ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have much luck, I'm still a little foggy on the whole affair, so I decided to remove it instead, it's hardly of great relevance ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the email, The DFS is hardly insignificant ;)

I'm in the middle of delivering some training at the moment so if this can wait til Monday I'll look at it. The problem is probably that I'll need to write an article on Naval Fires first, to avoid explaining the whole lot in here. Unfortunately the issue is much wider than the Naval Gunfire Support Article is both crap and not the whole story.

ALR (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the "insignificant", I only thought so as I literally know nothing about it, lol I didn't even realise the "Fire" bit meant "gunfire", I thought it was about flamey fire. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Naval Fires is the delivery of fire effect from the maritime environment, that includes Naval Gunfire Support (either ashore or anti-surface), maritime launched cruise missile (either from surface or submarine) or fire effect from sea-based aircraft. the Digital Fires Network is a co-ordination network to ensure that delivery of effect is synchronised from different platforms with a shared recognised picture. That makes sure that the desired effect is achieved, resources are not squandered where they're not required and the force are responsive to the needs of the land or air forces.

ALR (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That is great, now it needs to be put into accessible, encyclopedic language. Woody (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it needs sourced; meeting notes, architecture diagrams and my own trainers notes won't do.

ALR (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• SupportComment I think this is a very good article. It has been copyedited a number of times which has improved the flow. It seems to meet all MOS requirements. The sourcing has improved greatly since the A-Class review; though I still have a few questions. Source 13 (The Gulf. HMS Cardiff—The 1982 Ship's Company.) is a link to an image, it doesn't verify anything. Source 48 (Archive copy at the Internet Archive) doesn't list the actual information. Use {{cite web}} with the archiveurl= and archivedate parameters. Fix those, and I will support. Well done. Woody (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Amended Woody (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Replaced [13], and changed [48] to {{cite web}} (could you check I did this properly please). Ryan4314 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• That placates me; I support now. With regards to the gap in the available knowledge that Tom highlights, that is not unusual. Finding verifiable sources is extremely hard and sometimes the ships simply haven't done anything of worth. Regards Woody (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Of worth??? Charming.

Lots of valuable military activity is routine and therefore not reported, either in the media or in other literature. Mind you there does seem to be a bit of a culture of recent trivia in many ship related articles, whereas more substantive less recent history is missing, because sources aren't easily available. T42s in the 80s were workhorses, in that time she probably did three major deployments and a host of minor jobs.

ALR (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I meant ALR, and you know it. By worth, I mean nothing that got noted in reliable sources and nothing out of the ordinary for a ship of that size in the 80s. If you can find the information in reliable sources, then please list it. Cardiff is most well-known for her action in the Falklands, which is why, unsurprisingly, that is what is concentrated on. Woody (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

lol ALR, plz don't piss off my only Supporter ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have included a smiley. I suspect your usage typifies the current view that the civilian population, even those who are informed and knowledgeable, don't really understand what modern operational forces do. Much of the work on the cold war doesn't deal with individual platforms, but it does talk about the operations which went on. Most of the sources for now are probably ephemera.

ALR (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't that offended, and Ryan, I am hardly going to change my comments because of a disagreement with another user ;) Most sources are ephemeral I agree, which is why specific books regarding the Cardiff should be used over online sources. If only such books existed. Woody (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to tear into each other lol! On a serious note, I am looking forward to reading about DFN when you get round to starting the article, as a civilian I could proof-read it for you both, to make sure it's understandable. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Is the sentence "On a lesser note, Cardiff’s rugby team fared well in this period by reaching the finals of the Mid-Ships Rugby Competition and defeating a team from Llandaff Rugby Club." really needed in article reated to a destroyer in the Royal Navy? If not, then I would suggest ommitting it.
  • Was there no availiable history for the ship from 1982-1990? It seems a little strange that there would be an eight year ommission between two points of conflict. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before in the GA and "A" class reviews, I can't find any online sources (here's a list of most of Cardiff refs I've found), but your welcome to look. I could find out from former crew what she got up to, but obviously if I can't find a ref for it (one that's need to be up to FA standard), it'd be fruitless task. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Ok then, the article meets all existing criteria for FA, but do keep an eye out for any info that on that missing eight year time period; sooner or later it will become an issue again, either at a peer review level or at the FAR(C) level. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ɬ

• Generally supportive of FA, although acknowledge that I've already provided some input. I have a couple of areas which more thought could be put into though.

• I don't know if this vague comment is intended as a support; if it is, the declarer should bold per WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• She later participated in the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as part of the Royal Navy's Armilla Patrol; Cardiff thwarted attempts to smuggle oil out of the country, but was not involved in the actual invasion. is not really all that representative of the contribution. Armilla patrol wasn't a precursor to the Iraq invasion, the Op had gone on in various guises for in excess of 10 years. I think come the time of Telic it was known as Op Bolton anyway... I think perhaps the current phrasing puts undue weight on the Bush family feud.
• What other Battle Honours did CARDIFF hold? I'm pretty sure that it would have been more than two, her predecessor hulls probably gained some as well.
• You might want to explain LAAWC.
• Cardiff didn't fire the lightweight torpedo, her cab did.
• The history gap is a bit of an issue, but already covered elsewhere. Buckshot has already pointed you towards Naval Hysterical branch who might be able to source something for you.

ALR (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I knew about how long the Armilla Patrols have existed, didn't realise the wording made it seem like an operation made especially for the build-up to Iraq. I'll reword it, plus it's articles explains it's a regular deployment anyway. The Royal navy reference for it (which is later in the article per WP:LEAD) still refers to it as Armilla Patrol instead of "Op Bolton".
• "Bush family feud"?
• I'm not 100% sure, but I think a ship's specific article (i.e. D108) only talks about the battle honours she earned, whereas her namesake's article (i.e. HMS Cardiff) talks about the name's legacy of battle honours. I don't think she (D108) has any other battle honours, she wasn't involved Yugoslavia, and I don't even think ships in the Yugoslavia campaign got battle honours, campaign medals for their crews yes, but I don't know about a battle honour. Anyway I've asked Tom about it, hopefully he'll get back to me.
• There was an explanation of this, but it was suggested that I remove it during her A-Class review.
• Have you got a ref for this? The "Report of Proceedings" ref (June 2nd) confirms it was an STWS launch. If you're interested, Ken also posted this on the SAMA forums regarding the incident;

Having just posted something relating to torpedoes and HMS Broadsword I had a 'flashback' to our torpedo saga;

We had just arrived with the reinforcement group and everyone was a bit twitchy. All was quiet this particular day when the sonar lads picked up a contact.............bedlam ensued. We were on our own, no other units were near to assist us in prosecuting this possible submarine. It was going to take time to get our Lynx helicopter airborne armed with the right weapon so we opted do it ourselves and if required use our STWS (Shipborne Torpedo Weapon System). We twisted and turned and closed this 'submarine' which was now on a steady heading towards us at slow speed.............'stalking us'.

" Cardiff zooms towards the submarine and launches a torpedo from the STWS launcher "Thooomp"...........delay............"Kerboooom". Captain leeps out of his chair and runs toward the ladder heading for the bridge............."PWO, I'm orf to the bridge to smell for diesel", smiling like a little boy in a toffee shop.

All the radar lads are still staring at their screens bewildered and wondering what has just happened...........no submarine. Just a great lump of rock on the seabed and a very keen sonar crew. When this incident is reported to the Admiral he is heard to say "Funny how the new boys react every time a shrimp farts".

Ryan4314 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Armilla went through a number of names over time, it was Bolton in the late 90s early '00s. I think my main issue is with the wording implying that it was related to Telic.
• Family Feud, really just my take on the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion.
• No problem, I just find it odd not to aggregate the battle honours.
• No problem, I didn't think the Batch 1 had STWS, but clearly they did.

ALR (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the question you asked Tom. It might be that US policy is driving Wikipedia again. In the UK the ship bears the battle honours associated with the name, rather than just the hull. It means that the hulls have history and tradition ;)

No point in fighting the Wikipedia system though.

ALR (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the wording now? Go easy on Tom, he probably just doesn't understand that we do things differently in the UK, that a ship is eternal, living through her namesakes. I'll rephrase the question to him. In regards to the STWS, I have a great little crown piccy of Cardiff firing a torpedo in the Gulf in '82, I'll e-mail it to you :) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.