Talk:Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope article.
Article policies
Featured article star Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 28, 2007.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Woody (talk • contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] older entries

I assume "ABC" is notable enough to leave the middle name in the article title? ugen64 03:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't you say Admiral Mountbatten was more famous than Admiral Cunningham? I suggest removing the sentence stating that the latter "was the most famous British admiral of World War II". --F Sykes 14:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't agree that Cunningham was less famous than Mountbatten, I think that statement should be removed purely because it seems rather subjective. Niether one of them is so famous that they're household names, so "who's more famous" depends on who you talk to. If no one minds, i'll change it too " 'a' famous British Admiral.."

While I think the change is fine it's a pretty tough argument that Cunningham is as famous as Mountbatten. C was well known publically for a small window in and around WW2, Mountbatten's royal connections ensured he had a profile from the war to his death with a widely covered funeral. Alci12 09:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review for FA

I've just gone through the article and I think it's generally well-written and informative, but there are some issues standing in the way of my support:

  • Why is (WW1) written after World War I in the opener, but (WW2) is not written after World War II? I think the abbreviation is unnecessary.
    • Done
  • Why is Cunningham written in bold in the "Early Naval Career" section? The section "Interwar" years has no spacing, but "Inter war years" is used several times in the text. Whichever is correct should be used exclusively.
    • Done
  • This sentence, "For his actions in the Baltics Cunningham was awarded a second bar to his DSO along with promotion to Captain in 1920 and when he returned he was appointed Captain of the British 6th Destroyer Flotilla in 1922" sounds awkward. It should either be split into two sentences or simplified somehow.
    • Split
  • I'm fairly certain that the block quotation in the "Battle of Taranto" violates the MoS, and if not, it's awkward. The MoS states that only quotations 4 lines or longer should be placed in a block, and never with inverted commas (this article essentially has two sets, but the graphics are fine). Furthermore, it comes out of nowhere without an introduction.
    • Done, albeit begrudgingly, by integrating
  • The same goes for the block at the start of the next section, though it looks a bit more appropriate there.
    • Integrated text so avoided problems
  • The way in which you quoted the author differs in both quotations: it should be consistent.
    • same as above
  • Why is "Air Attack" written upper-cased?
    • Done
  • Why is "Operation MERCURY" written with the second word small and in all caps?
    • Don't know so i changed it
  • Italics should be removed from within quotations as per the MoS, unless emphasis is absolutely intended.
    • Emphasis was intended so kept them
  • Commas seem to be used far too sparingly throughout, making the article a bit difficult to read. See the WP:PUNC about serial commas.
  • You should also go through to make sure that refs appear consistently without whitespace. I removed this a few times, but may have missed it in other areas. Also quite a few full stops were missing.
    • Checked, removed some duplicate refs from within paragraphs as well
  • The last sentence makes it sound like he died at the garden party. I think it should be split into two sentences.
    • Done by separating them

[edit] 1941-1943

How on earth does this article warrant A-class let alone FA when it skirts over one of the most important periods of the war? It UTTERLY misses out the period following the battle of Crete to the Torch landings in November, 1942. This saw the sinking severe damaging of the battleships Queen Elizabeth and Valiant, the sinking of the carriers Ark Royal and Eagle, the vicious fighting surrounding the Malta convoys and general prosecution of the naval war in the face of Axis air control and the see-sawing land situation in North Africa.

There is also the controversy surrounding Cunningham's perceived lack of forethought in the naval planning for Operation Husky and the minimal interdiction provided by the navy and the Royal Air Force in the Straits of Messina.

For what it's worth the rest of the article is very good (aside from the absence of Cunningham's earliest ships, which I will find and mention). --Harlsbottom 09:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is written in summary style as per WP:SUMMARY, it is not meant to be a critique of every single operation that he ever fought in. I do understand your point that the Malta Convoys and Pedastal in partciular were important in relation to Cunningham, i will add them in soon (or you can). However this article is not meant to explore every operation that occured in the Meditteranean in the Second World War. Therefore your mention of see-sawing situations in Africa and Operation Husky could be seen as irrelavent to this article. Husky was predominantly controlled by Patton and Eisenhower as far as i know. Operation Torch is already mentioned but could be expanded upon somewhat i agree. The key idea we have to retain is; is it notable in relation to Cunningham? We already have articles on Operation Pedestal and the Malta Convoys and for the most part they were controlled by other Admirals although i am sure Cunningham would have had direct responsibility.
What i am keen to stress is that this article is not a critique on the War in the Meditteranean, it is an encyclopedia article on Cunningham. Also do you think it neccessary to include every ship he ever served on. Could you expand on which ships you want to mention? Thanks Woodym555 10:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colleges before the age of 10?

From the article:

...Cunningham was born in Rathmines, Dublin on 7 January 1883 and he attended several schools and colleges before he was enrolled at a Naval Academy, at the age of 10..

Maybe I don't understand the British use of the term college, but I've not heard of children under 10 enrolled in college, excepting the rare genius, and this article seems to suggest he was in a number of colleges before this age.

JordanHenderson (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

College in this sense of the term includes some Private schools in Britain. The British education system has an extremely complicated, confused and generally strange way of codifying schools. It is written in British English and does not refer to higher education colleges. Hope this clears it up. Woodym555 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It does. Thanks! JordanHenderson (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "first carrier-based air attack in history"?

The statement about Taranto being the first carrier-based air attack in history goes too far. There was at least one raid from Japanese carriers during the Sino-Japanese war in 1937; there may have been others. Okumiya, M. and Horikoshi, J., with Caidin, M., Zero, pp. 22-27; E. P. Dutton & Co. (New York, 1956). Possibly Taranto was the first carrier attack against enemy ships. That quibble aside, congratulations to the authors of this interesting article on a worthy subject. Kablammo (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree he was worthy, thanks for the congrats, and have reworded the lead sentence accordingly. According to the sources i could find to hand, it was the first completely all-aircraft naval attack in history. I will amend the blurb on the main page as well. Thanks for pointing it out. Woodym555 (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Early naval career section is goofy

How does this section get in there so it doesn't show up on the edit screen and cannot be edited, no matter what I do.

It also messes up the edit section links below it, everything out of whack. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it was just vandalism removing the section, and I was going back to the version with it and trying to hit he edit links there. I put that section back in. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knighthood

Excellent article. Well done to all involved. His Knighthood (KCB) is mentioned in the table of honours at the bottom by not in the main body, unlike his DSOs. Wouldn't it be worth a mention? Epeeist smudge (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Graphic in the Introduction section

Please note these is a strange "table" formed of coloured squares in a languaje that's not english, just before the first paragraph of the article. Don't know what it means, but it's pretty clear to me that it shouldn't be there. Can anyone please review and cleanup the article, if necessary?
Thanks DPdH (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC) .

Experimentation or vandalism, since removed. Kablammo (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More vandalism

Someone replaced the entire page with a few random letters. I restored it to it's original state. firstlensman 9:09, 28 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Errors in second paragraph?

"... schooling in Dublin and Edinburgh, Scotland". Dublin is not in Scotland.

"... enrolled at a naval academy, at the age of 10.". Is that correct? The age of 10? Hard to believe. - mbeychok (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As it had already been pointed out earlier in the article that Dublin is in Ireland, it hardly needs to be continually emphasised. 82.35.59.204 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh and age of 10 is correct, especially within the context. In the 1890s it was common place. The Naval Academy was a prepatory academy for Dartmouth. Woodym555 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of death

Is there no recorded cause of death? Would be extra info for the article if it could be found. SGGH speak! 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Little has actually been written about his life in retirement and his death. I don't have the books to hand though I will check when and if I reacquire them. Woodym555 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)