Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Cardiff (D108)

HMS Cardiff (D108)

• Featured article candidates/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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)