Talk:HMAS Queenborough (G70)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 HMAS Queenborough (G70) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 2, 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMAS Queenborough (G70) article.
Article policies


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.


[edit] Redirect

Redirection created from (mis-spelled) "Queensborough" page. Note the correct spelling QUEENBOROUGH (no S). See Royal Australian Navy historical listing for the ship.

[edit] Re: Good Article review

I'm the main contributor to this article, and I don't think its reandy for GA yet, mainly because I'm having trouble finding information for the ship's wartime service. While everything post-war is good, wartime service is a patchy mess I haven't been able to work on yet. -- saberwyn 21:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMAS Queenborough (G70)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

With the above comment taken into consideration, I will offer the following suggestions:

  1. Any way the construction section could be made a little more in depth, to perhaps a 'full paragraph' (i.e. another sentence or two)?
  2. The 1943 section is very short and perhaps could use a bit more general information to embellish it in such a way that it will look more 'filled'. This is similar to the above point. Right now it just looks like two random facts popped into the section.
  3. [More details on the process of the refit] - This needs to be filled out before the article is made a good article, in my opinion.
  4. A mercy dash to Aden at 29 knots saved the crewman's life, - What is a mercy dash?
  5. ...and was forced to lower her Hull Outfit 7 to foil photographic and electronic information collection. - What is Hull Outfit 7? Since it's a redlink, perhaps a bit of information about what this means should be added.
  6. It's well sourced, but are there perhaps any other sources you could do to make the references a tad more versatile? As of now, it looks like it's all based on the same book. I know it's difficult to find so much information on ships like these, especially a specific ship in a class, but if there are other sources I would suggest adding them in to replace existing references, so that it's not just based on a single reference.
  7. Why is - Anti-submarine warfare involved the use of a Type 128CV ASDIC to detect enemy submarines, while [either four Mark 4 depth-charge throwers OR two Mark 4 depth-charge throwers and two sets of depth-charge rails]. - incomplete, with some of the text italicised and inside brackets?
  8. Sorry to jump around! I read and re-read the article, so my comments are all over the place. HMS Queenborough served in the Arctic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean, and Pacific Ocean during World War II. - To lengthen that portion a bit, perhaps include, 'between 1943 and 1945'. Perhaps it could summarize portions of the text below relevant to 1943, 1944 and 1945. It seems that is an introductory to everything below it, but doesn't summarize.
  9. Under 1945, there is a citation necessary - apparently.


Nevertheless:

  1. I believe the prose is clear.
  2. For accuracy and factually verifiable, see point 6 above.
  3. It is broad in coverage and stays focused.
  4. It is neutral and stable.
  5. It only has one image. Are any other fair use images available? You could ask the government of Australia through an email.

All in all, it looks good except a few nitpicks. Please, feel free to say if you feel that I am incorrect!

- JonCatalan (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In response:

  • To most comments: I have been unable to locate and access at this time the appropriate resources to fill these sections out to the detail required. This is my next challenge, as soon as uni finishes for the semester.
  • Comments 4, 5: I don't know. These are the terms the source used. I assume from the context that a 'mercy dash' is a pedal-to-the-metal run to save a life. I don't have the foggiest idea what a 'Hull Outfit' is, and as soon as I find out, I'm gonna make that redlink blue.
  • Comment 3, 7: That's editing notes I appear to have left in. Oops. :P
  • Comment 6: I have used Weaver so much because it is the only source that deals in-depth with Q class ships in Australian service. Most of the others deal with the ship in passing, and I have used these in preference to Weaver where possible. As I find more sources, I will continue to diversify the references.
  • Comment 8: It will become a summary once the below sections are fleshed out.
  • Images: That's the project after I finish the text of this article. The Australian War memorial has a wealth of public-domain images to use... I just need to finish the article first.

Thank you for your comments, they will be taken into consideration as I strive to improve this article. However, I believe that this will not be possible within the 7-day timeframe, and think the article should be failed/delisted at this time. -- saberwyn 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good article and I'd hate to fail it, but I think you're correct since you know pretty well what you need to do. JonCatalan (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)