Talk:HMS Hood (1891)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleHMS Hood (1891) 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.
Good topic starHMS Hood (1891) is part of the Predreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 26, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 23, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

metacentric height

This paragraph conflict with my understanding of stability. Since the next paragraph depends on it, I am trying to look up this term, rather than simply changing it now. David R. Ingham 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find "As the ship is inclined through small angles of heel, the lines of buoyant force intersect at a point called the metacenter." For stability, the center of gravity must be below the metacentric hight. Will try to fix article to agree with this. David R. Ingham 20:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Hood (1891)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 14:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take on this review later tonight - I haven't done a ship in quite some time. Per the toolbox at the side, there is one disambiguation link in the article, and resolving it may help my review. Canadian Paul 14:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had to write a stub, but fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not introduce any information that is not present in the body of the article. Currently the information in the first sentence isn't present in the body and would be useful in contextualizing the "Design" section.
Thought that I'd deleted that bit.
  1. Under "Design", second paragraph, "The lower freeboard was required by her use of armoured gun turrets—a heavy type of rotating gun mounting of the mid-and-late 19th century very different from what would later be known as gun "turrets" on ships—rather than having the guns exposed on top of barbettes — the ancestor of the modern "turret", which is essentially a barbette enclosed by a rotating gunhouse, a very different concept from the older style of turret Hood mounted." This sentence is far too long to follow and needs to be cut up into at least two for the flow to work.
Entirely rewritten. See how it works for you.
  1. Under "Armament", third paragraph, "In 1897 one of these 3-pounders..." Maybe I'm being oblivious, but what 3-pounders? I don't think that they've been mentioned up to this point in the text.
My mistake.
  1. Under "Construction and career", third paragraph, is there any information on when the repairs were completed? Seems like a missing piece of information here, given how detailed the timeline for everything else is.
No, only the total time for the repairs and refit together is in my sources.
  1. Same section, fourth paragraph, "The ship was placed into reserve at Devonport on 3 January 1905, where she remained until February 1907." I presume that you're referring to Hood here, but technically its ambiguous in the text whether "the ship" is Hood or Russell.
Fixed.
  1. Same section, fifth paragraph, is there a reason that "Sale List" is capitalized? If show, what it is should briefly be explained, even if it's a bit obvious.
Fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, just a few minor clarifications needed. To allow for these issues to be addressed I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 18:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at it right now! Canadian Paul 18:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is still information in the lead that is not present in the body of the article: it implies (and even less so than the last change) rather than outright stating that Hood was "a modified Royal Sovereign-class pre-dreadnought battleship", nor does it mention that it was "the last of the eight built". Also, it doesn't look like anything has been done to address my question/issue with the sale list. Finally, is there a citation for "'Ood 'Ave Thought It?'" being the ship's nickname? Seems like something that could be reasonably challenged. Otherwise, it should be good to go for GA status once this has been taken care of! Canadian Paul 18:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the nickname as I can't source it. Clarified the bit about being last in her class and had missed that sale list was mentioned twice. See if it works for you now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it should be good to go. I'm going to give it one more quick re-read right now. Canadian Paul 16:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article now appears to meet the Good Article criteria and therefore I will be passing it. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

two bells

@Mohawk82: Please show which sentences justify the statement "The ship's bell was later used as one of two bells on the battlecruiser HMS Hood"?

https://www.nmrn.org.uk/news-events/nmrn-blog/conserved-hms-hood-bell-rings-out-75th-anniversary-largest-ever-royal-navy

The citation mentions that this bell was used as a bell on the battlecruiser HMS Hood. It does not mention the Hood having a second bell.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could have sworn it was there. This source indicates two ceremonial bells [1]

Another source indicates that there were at least THREE bells [2]

Excerpted text

Hood is known to have carried at least three bells; two were large but fairly typical watch bells and the third was this smaller, more ornate bell. This particular bell was the most important of the three. It had previously been used aboard the pre-dreadnought battleship Hood and was given to Admiral SIr Horace Hood following that ship's retirement. Following the death of Sir Horace at Jutland, his widow, Lady Hood, gifted the bell to our Hood.

The bell bears two inscriptions: the first, located around the lower edge reads "This bell was preserved from HMS Hood Battleship 1891-1914 by Late ADM Hon. Horace Hood killed at Jutland 31 May 1916.". The second inscription, located on the side of the bell reads "In accordance with the wishes of Lady Hood it was presented in memory of her husband to HMS Hood battle cruiser the ship she launched 22nd August 1918." In addition to the inscriptions, the bell still wears vivid royal blue paint work on its crown as well as its interior. The bell was recovered in August 2015 and subsequently preserved for display at the National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohawk82 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/archaeology/paul-allen-recovers-hms-hoods-bell-as-memorial-for-1415-men-who-lost-their-lives/news-story/4243725ceb280dd881ca82eb38888719
  2. ^ http://hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001expedition/hood/wreckdebris2.htm
  3. ^ http://hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001expedition/hood/wreckdebris2.htm

6 Pounder QF

@Sturmvogel 66: In this edit you changed "QF 6-pounder guns" to "QF 6-pounder Hotchkiss". How do you know they were the Hotchkiss model?

There was a Nordenfelt 6 pr QF gun. For example, HMS Camperdown used Nordenfelt 6 pr.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, although my edit didn't change anything but the number of guns. However, I have delinked all references to the 6-pdrs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbettes

Hood had no Barbettes. She was a sheer turret ship. The completely cenclosed armoured shields around the turrets were known as barbettes for some years after its introduction though but they wasn´t barbettes as we know them today. See: Burt British Battleships p. 85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Lovecraft (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barbettes

@User:Sturmvogel 66 Hood had no Barbettes. She was a sheer turret ship. The completely cenclosed armoured shields around the turrets were known as barbettes for some years after its introduction though but they wasn´t barbettes as we know them today. See: Burt British Battleships p. 85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Lovecraft (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:HMS_Hood_(1891)"