Talk:HMS Sheffield (C24)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Sheffield (C24). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a reverse copyvio. Most of the articles on the http://www.russianconvoyclub.org.nz/RoyalNavyShipsPT.html page are close copies of their corresponding WP articles. The Sheffield-related text on that site dates back to at least 2008 (https://web.archive.org/web/20080516112448/http://www.russianconvoyclub.org.nz/MembersShips.htm) and if the copyright dates on that page are accurate, was first created in 2007 (the domain was first registered 2007-05-11 according to https://www.dnc.org.nz/whois/search?domain_name=russianconvoyclub.org.nz).

The bulk of the WP article was written on 2006-11-02 by User:Folks_at_137, but the supposed "source" contains corrections made by User:Cosal on 2007-01-22 (but not the further corrections made by other authors in August 2007, indicating that it was copied between these dates; likely around the date of the domain registration in May 2007), thus, it cannot be the original source.

Mallardtheduck (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems quite bizarre that this was even listed as a potential copybio when it's so obviously a reverse copybio. 2600:1702:1870:74D0:B56C:CB57:8785:608 (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - this seems a pretty clear case where it's been copied from us. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. GGOTCC (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Sheffield (C24)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Klutserke (talk · contribs) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 08:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images appropriately licensed
  • Earwig reports only 16%
  • The lede is a bit short for such a long article; see German cruiser Prinz Eugen for an example on how to write a lede for a ship. Remember that you're summarizing the main body (WP:LEAD), so don't fill it out with excessive detail. It's hard to find a balance, but do your best.
  • Let me add to your difficulties with the lede by noting that you refer to the actions with the Bismarck and Scharnhorst twice. Once is enough.
    • I had a go at it, could you review ?
  • The motto, nickname and pennant number in the infobox need citations unless they're cited in the main body or lede, which is preferable
    • I reffed the pennant and yard nbr, the nickname is ref'd in the characteristic chapter
  • All measurements should have imperial and metric conversions and the unfamiliar ones should be linked, including long tons
    • fixed on tonnage and oil capacity, any other places left ?
  • The ship was built and scrapped before the British went to the metric system. All measurements should be in imperial first with a metric conversion
    • fixed - I checked how it's done on other pages.
  • I'm fussy about the infobox and have fixed a large number of minor issues myself. That said you need to spell out quadruple and add links to the radars where they have their own article
    • Ok done
  • There are a lot of missing links to nautical and aviation jargon: class, laid down, launched, battleship, torpedo bomber, scrapped, decommissioned, reserve, etc.
    • I added some links. just a few doubts : town-class is linked, is that what you meant with 'class' ? Also, commisioning and decommissionning are covered by the same article, should i link twice nevertheless ?
  • The ship had an aircraft catapult, hangars and aircraft. Why are they not in the infobox? Or the main body?
    • added in characteristics and infobox
  • Similarly, where's the range information?
    • added both in characteristics and infobox
  • Are you aware that the ship has a biography? Ronald Basset's HMS Sheffield: The Life and Times of 'Old Shiny'. Might be useful borrow or acquire a copy.
    • Added under 'further reading'.
  • I'm not trying to denigrate your work here; you've done pretty well for a first-time GA nomination. I just think that's it's essential to refer to a book specifically about a ship, when writing about said ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoi, thx for your effort. indeed it's a first time GA nomination, For B-class referencing seems to be the most important thing, for GA it's more about content i see. I had no idea to what kind of thing to pay attention to for GA, so that's more clear now. I'll pick up your points one by one and add comment inline. Klutserke (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll start going through the service section later tonight or tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66, please confirm if you can continue with this review or not. It has been 2 months since the last comment by GGOTCC. If you can not, someone else can continue the review. Pinging IntentionallyDense also. Matarisvan (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Sturmvogel is unable to, I volunteer to take their place and finish the review. GGOTCC 18:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GGOTCC, I think you should go ahead with this. S66 has been active these past two months but hasn't replied here. If they want to continue then you can do a joint review. Matarisvan (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan Sounds good! I got a boat-load of tests this week, so I'll do my side of the review over the weekend. GGOTCC 01:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator hasn't been active for over a month now. Ping @Klutserke. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi All, I will pick up any remarks and feedback give on this page, thx ! Klutserke (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Part II: Electric Boogaloo

@Klutserke: I trust S66’s judgment, so my goal is to perform a second/third review on the page to fix any left over issues. Right now, the main issues regard uncomfortable prose. I’ve fixed some myself, but more eyes will be appreciated. Many sentences are confusing and either need to be broken up or restructured. Also, Oxford commas and commas after months would be great. I also spot some issues with repetition or unexplained termanology.

Prose:

The GA articles on Manchester and Gloucester will be helpful templates. One thing lacking is a background on the development of the cruiser. Adding the line The Town-class light cruisers were designed as counters to the Japanese Mogami-class cruisers built during the early 1930s from those two articles would be helpful to establish the role she filled with the RN IMO.

  • Done

type 79Y This is not mentioned prior. The Type 79 is, but not the Y model. What's the dffrence?

  • Fixed

In March, the cruiser participated briefly in support of Convoy PQ 12, Sheffield sailed to replace the heavy cruiser Berwick which had engine trouble, in the Home Fleet, just when Operation Sportpalast based on German battleship Tirpitz threatened the convoy Can this be reworded? A few sentences in the article are a bit clunky and uncomfortable, especially due to a lack of commas. I recommend you either reading the article out loud or finding a text-to-speech website to help identify any areas needing some love.

  • Addressed

but both cruisers could comb the launched torpedoes What? From my background knowledge, I know what you mean, but the average reader may not.

  • Fixed

Sheffield was part of the distant cover force Since the term has not been mentioned before, it should be defined, reworded, or wikilinked. What is a distant cover force?

  • Addressed

In the bad visibility and the polar nights, the British were at a clear advantage with their superior radars. What does polar nights have to do with visibility and radar?

  • Addressed

n the following days, Southampton was sunk, the aircraft carrier Illustrious and Gloucester were severely damaged. By enemy aircraft or something else?

  • Fixed

The infobox should also include her newer AA weapons

  • Fixed

This might be a nitpick, but a sentence such as The surrender of France created a void in the Western Mediterranean which was covered by the creation of Force H (Vice admiral James Somerville) in Gibraltar on 27 June. would make more sense if Force H is mentioned before the void, ie. Following the surrender of France, Force H was established at Gibraltar to cover the newly maid void in the Western Mediterranean. Also, what made the void? Did the RN lose bases in France?

  • Fixed

Overall, this is a very nice article! I’m impressed as it is your first GA nomination. Don’t let my complaining put you down, well done! This week, I will be procrastinating at school, meaning I will have a lot of time to read over the article and make corrections/update my review. Its getting late here, so I'll wrap up for today. GGOTCC 04:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not see the need to mention Admirals when they are named once. Is this a Brit thing? I may be wrong, so idk GGOTCC 04:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+ Since Ark Royal was described as an aircraft carrier once, there is no need to repeat the phrase, "aircraft carrier Ark Royal..." Same goes for the battlecruisers mentioned GGOTCC 19:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I pruned a bit in the battleship, battlecruiser, aircraft carrier, etc... at one place i kept it since there's a logn enumeration of ships of several types so it makes easier to grasp how the total force is composed. Klutserke (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd mention the admirals as they are notable, if that's fine with you Klutserke (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have that much of a strong opinion on the matter, so I degrees. GGOTCC 00:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klutserke, it's almost been two weeks since GGOTCC posted comments. This review has been open for 6 months now, I think you should wrap it up soon. Matarisvan (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I have addressed most of the points, I'll finish the rest this weekend and ping @GGOTCC when done. Klutserke (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Klutserke With those points addressed and some other copyediting issues fixed, I will pass the article. Congratulations on your first GA, it is well earned! Thanks also goes out to @Matarisvan, @Sturmvogel 66, and the others involved during the first round.
Does anyone know if we just won the award for longest GA review? GGOTCC 00:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, the jury for such award would take ages to deliberate their verdict :). Thx everybody for the joint effort Klutserke (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old Shiny had steamed more then 236,000 miles, roughly equal to ten times around the world, and, the first wqrship to carry her name, had earned twelve battle honours. This was more than any other ship of her class, equalled only by the destroyer Tartar, and surpassed only by the battleship Warspite, the cruiser Orion and the destroyer Nubian, each of which had earned thirteen.
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: the twelve battle honours are listed in the infobox
Improved to Good Article status by Klutserke (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Klutserke (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Date missmatch in the article

The first paragraphe of the article says :"The ship was laid down in January 1936, launched in July 1936, and commissioned in August 1937."

The first paragraphe of the "characteristics" section says :"Her keel was laid on 31 January 1935, she was launched on 23 July 1936 and she was completed on 25 August 1937."

Was the ship laid in 35 or 36? 184.95.234.138 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HMS_Sheffield_(C24)