This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMAS Australia (1911) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
HMAS Australia (1911) 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 so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HMAS Australia (1911) is part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 25, 2011. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Use of the Australian naval ensign is incorrect. MILHIST articles use historically correct flags & since the RAN ensign wasn't used until the 1960s, Australia (and all Commonwealth warships) would have used the White ensign. I'll change it soon. Folks at 137 ( talk) 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would think that HMAS Melbourne [1] qualifies as a capital ship under any standard definition? 198.253.49.6 ( talk) 16:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The present text states, "Australia did not participate in the Battle of Jutland: at the time of the engagement, she was undergoing repairs to her armour plating following two successive collisions with sister ship HMS New Zealand while zigzagging in heavy fog on 22 June 1916." Obviously this is an error because the Battle of Jutland occurred on May 31 - June 1, 1916, so a collision on 22 June 1916 could not have caused her to miss the battle. Somebody please get the facts correct and edit. Thanks! - N'Awlins Contrarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.230.2 ( talk) 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
We've got two different dates for the aircraft and there's nothing in Roberts to reconcile the two.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The State Library of Victoria now has two high-quality photos of Australia available on its website with their copyright status marked as "This work is out of copyright". Would there be any objections to using the photo in this thread as a replacement for the current lead photo in the infobox? - it's clearer and much higher resolution than the current photo. A high resolution TIFF version of the photo is also available on the SLV's website, but it's 30 MB +. Nick-D ( talk) 10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, where is note II supposed to link to in the article? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I know its a few years off, but I'm proposing that we try to save this article for "Today's Featured Article" on 4 October 2013. This will be the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the RAN's new fleet in Sydney, an event I believe that the RAN is planning to make some fuss about with an international fleet review and other festivities. If no other suitable articles present themselves, and if this is still at FA status, having the flagship of the RAN fleet on the main page would be pretty awesome. Some other suitable dates in the foreseeable furtue include 25 October 2011 (100 years since launching) and 21 June 2013 (100 years since commissioning), but I don't think those will attract as much off-Wiki attention. -- saberwyn 07:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't "in favour of" read "in preference to"? -- Wikiain ( talk) 02:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There seem to be some problems with the mutiny section. This, "After the battlecruiser's arrival in Fremantle, the sailors were expecting shore leave after four years' service in foreign waters. However, the stay only amounted to three full days, with Australia scheduled to depart early on 1 June for Melbourne," suggested to me on first reading that no leave was granted, when in fact it was. There's no mention that some of those sailors arrested were drunk, nor that when Australia left Fremantle Captain Cumberlege cleared lower deck and read out the articles of war (which are very explicit about the penalties for mutiny). See Stevens, The HMAS Australia Mutiny, 1919 in Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century, a surprising omission from the bibliography. As to "Two senior officers resigned from the Board in protest", I know that Grant tendered his resignation. Did anyone else on the Board? Dumaresq, who tendered his resignation five days after Grant, was not a member. -- Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 09:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Most of your concerns can be fixed by copyediting, and I am drafting such at the moment. The second officer was Grant, but the way it was phrased in the source implied that both were Board members. At the moment is I am finding some major discrepancies between Frame's and Stevens' account of these events: a problem when they are the two main names in RAN historiography. The first is the sequence of events once the ship was underway: Frame claims the stokers returned freely before Cumberledge's lecture, while Stevens says that they only did so after the speech and after being ordered. The second is the number of involved. Steven says 5 + 7, but Frame gives 5 + 27. The RAN backs up Stevens' numbers (albeit, ship history pages are the domain of the Sea Power Centre, which Stevens heads, and he may have written or contributed to that webpage), while the Australian War Memorial agrees with Frame. I'll try the best I can, but its probably going to need a sledgehammer copyedit. -- saberwyn 03:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, there's an image of Australia at the US Library of Congress that I don't think anyone has uploaded (unless I missed it). Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The propellor mentioned in the text is located a short walk away and the plaque identifies it as the outer port propellor. This article identifies it as the outer starboard screw. Has the Australian War Memorial stuffed up? Or have we? -- Pete ( talk) 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMAS Australia (1911). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMAS Australia (1911) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
HMAS Australia (1911) 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 so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HMAS Australia (1911) is part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 25, 2011. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Use of the Australian naval ensign is incorrect. MILHIST articles use historically correct flags & since the RAN ensign wasn't used until the 1960s, Australia (and all Commonwealth warships) would have used the White ensign. I'll change it soon. Folks at 137 ( talk) 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would think that HMAS Melbourne [1] qualifies as a capital ship under any standard definition? 198.253.49.6 ( talk) 16:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The present text states, "Australia did not participate in the Battle of Jutland: at the time of the engagement, she was undergoing repairs to her armour plating following two successive collisions with sister ship HMS New Zealand while zigzagging in heavy fog on 22 June 1916." Obviously this is an error because the Battle of Jutland occurred on May 31 - June 1, 1916, so a collision on 22 June 1916 could not have caused her to miss the battle. Somebody please get the facts correct and edit. Thanks! - N'Awlins Contrarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.230.2 ( talk) 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
We've got two different dates for the aircraft and there's nothing in Roberts to reconcile the two.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The State Library of Victoria now has two high-quality photos of Australia available on its website with their copyright status marked as "This work is out of copyright". Would there be any objections to using the photo in this thread as a replacement for the current lead photo in the infobox? - it's clearer and much higher resolution than the current photo. A high resolution TIFF version of the photo is also available on the SLV's website, but it's 30 MB +. Nick-D ( talk) 10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, where is note II supposed to link to in the article? — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I know its a few years off, but I'm proposing that we try to save this article for "Today's Featured Article" on 4 October 2013. This will be the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the RAN's new fleet in Sydney, an event I believe that the RAN is planning to make some fuss about with an international fleet review and other festivities. If no other suitable articles present themselves, and if this is still at FA status, having the flagship of the RAN fleet on the main page would be pretty awesome. Some other suitable dates in the foreseeable furtue include 25 October 2011 (100 years since launching) and 21 June 2013 (100 years since commissioning), but I don't think those will attract as much off-Wiki attention. -- saberwyn 07:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't "in favour of" read "in preference to"? -- Wikiain ( talk) 02:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There seem to be some problems with the mutiny section. This, "After the battlecruiser's arrival in Fremantle, the sailors were expecting shore leave after four years' service in foreign waters. However, the stay only amounted to three full days, with Australia scheduled to depart early on 1 June for Melbourne," suggested to me on first reading that no leave was granted, when in fact it was. There's no mention that some of those sailors arrested were drunk, nor that when Australia left Fremantle Captain Cumberlege cleared lower deck and read out the articles of war (which are very explicit about the penalties for mutiny). See Stevens, The HMAS Australia Mutiny, 1919 in Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century, a surprising omission from the bibliography. As to "Two senior officers resigned from the Board in protest", I know that Grant tendered his resignation. Did anyone else on the Board? Dumaresq, who tendered his resignation five days after Grant, was not a member. -- Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 09:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Most of your concerns can be fixed by copyediting, and I am drafting such at the moment. The second officer was Grant, but the way it was phrased in the source implied that both were Board members. At the moment is I am finding some major discrepancies between Frame's and Stevens' account of these events: a problem when they are the two main names in RAN historiography. The first is the sequence of events once the ship was underway: Frame claims the stokers returned freely before Cumberledge's lecture, while Stevens says that they only did so after the speech and after being ordered. The second is the number of involved. Steven says 5 + 7, but Frame gives 5 + 27. The RAN backs up Stevens' numbers (albeit, ship history pages are the domain of the Sea Power Centre, which Stevens heads, and he may have written or contributed to that webpage), while the Australian War Memorial agrees with Frame. I'll try the best I can, but its probably going to need a sledgehammer copyedit. -- saberwyn 03:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, there's an image of Australia at the US Library of Congress that I don't think anyone has uploaded (unless I missed it). Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The propellor mentioned in the text is located a short walk away and the plaque identifies it as the outer port propellor. This article identifies it as the outer starboard screw. Has the Australian War Memorial stuffed up? Or have we? -- Pete ( talk) 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMAS Australia (1911). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)