Talk:HMS Campania (1914)

Untitled

There seems to be some discrepancies here with the official Board of Enquiry, a copy of which I have with me. The enquiry, held upon HMS Repulse and concluding on 12 November 1918, reported that:

• Campania struck first HMS Royal Oak (HMS Revenge is not mentioned at all in the official report), pushed her into Glorious, and then swung along Glorious's port side.
• The squall began at 03:30; Campania seems to have dragged her anchor very shortly after, as at 03:55 she made urgent signals for assistance.
• Campania sunk at 08:35, approximately five hours after the initial collision.

I have underlined the major discrepancies with the article in its present state. I'll note that Royal Oak was a Revenge-class battleship, which may be the source of reports saying that Campania was the Revenge. Perhaps we can discuss the reliability of sources here. — BillC ^talk 00:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill - great to hear from you. Feel free to edit as feel best. I put the article together while tracing down my great uncle, who served on the Campania in the RNAS. If you have further information /corrections please go ahead, I'm not expert, I drew together the sources from various internet sites. regards, Mark --mgaved 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any idea why she wasn't renamed? Trekphiler (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pre-GAN questions

• Images: the link for the second image is currently here. It's labeled an "official photograph" with a date of 1918; someone correct me if I'm wrong, but since this is before 1957, I think the Crown Copyright has expired so we're okay. The first image lists this as the source, but I don't see the image on that page; a little help? - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I hadn't bothered to check, but it's an Imperial War Museum photo. I've updated the licence info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be okay to toss this clause? "but the inboard end of the flight deck had to be dismounted to get them onto the flight deck". - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Only issue is that the hold was underneath the flight deck and it had to be lifted off to access the airplanes. But if you can rephrase, or break it out into a separate sentence feel free.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Okay I used your answer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have a slight preference for this if you think it's accurate: "and the close call in a favourable wind demonstrated that heavier aircraft could not be launched from the flight deck". - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Campania (1914)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've asked some questions above, done some copyediting, and raised some issues while copyediting; please check the edit summaries and let me know if you have questions or corrections. I have checked the article against Conway's; I don't have access to the other 3 books. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

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:

• - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is "Maber" in the references?

EOM, 207.47.199.32 (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh, wonder what happened to it? Restored.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Campania (1914). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070117122309/http://www.divebunker.co.uk/dive_site_pages/hms_campania.htm to http://www.divebunker.co.uk/dive_site_pages/hms_campania.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)