Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope[edit]

Self nomination. This article about a Royal Naval Admiral has been through a peer review and has passed an A-Class Review with the ever helpful MILHIST project. I think it now meets the FA criteria, thankyou for your attention. Woodym555 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment I went through the article and found that the information is very good, but that several grammatical/formatting issues are present. I noted these on the talk page. Another thing that could improve the article is a better explanation of jargon concerning military terms, ranks etc.. If you can fix those issues that I noted on the talk page, I will give my support. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good after the revision. If you could, I would like to see a little more jargon explained as others may have problems with that(e.g. maybe briefly explain fleet in being or what a DSO is awarded for). Also, "passed away" is discouraged by the MoS, and while I personally think that's silly, you may want to replace it with "died". At any rate it's a well-written, informative article. Good luck Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 01:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose NeutralSupport Let me quote:
    Cunningham saw much action in the interwar years starting with an immediate post war deployment on HMS Seafire which was involved in the campaign in the Baltics. They were faced with an extremely complex situation in which several different groups were attempting to gain control of Latvia, the independent status of which had been agreed under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and had been subsequently endorsed by the British Government. HMS Seafire was there under the flag of Admiral Walter Cowan. On the voyage to Libau Cunningham was impressed by Cowan's methods of achieving the task set as the fleet was ordered to continue to steam at 22 knots despite dangers posed by thick fog and minefields. Cowan's forceful brand of diplomacy saw the objective of the exercise achieved and the safe return of the fleet.
    • This is murky to a degree; what did Cowan do? Also, "forceful brand of diplomacy" is the sort of faded jocularity all too common in official writing.
    • This is because this is official writing. The source cited says:
      1919 saw the Squadron ordered to the Baltic with Cowan flying his Flag in the cruiser H.M.S. Curacoa. They were faced with an extremely complex situation in which several different groups were attempting to gain control of Latvia, the independent status of which had been agreed under the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and had been subsequently endorsed by the British Government. The posting saw Cowan join forces for the first time with another of Hood's Admirals, the then Captain Andrew Cunningham who was serving as Captain (Destroyers). On the voyage to Libau Cunningham was impressed by Cowan's methods of achieving the task set as the fleet was ordered to continuing to steam at 22 knots despite dangers posed by thick fog and minefields. Cowan's forceful brand of diplomacy saw the objective of the exercise achieved and the safe return of the fleet.
      • Plagiarism is unacceptable. You've found a fact; state clearly as much as you can, without the verbiage of the original, and then go find out what happened.. At a minimum, find the article, or write a stub, on what the British Navy was doing in the Baltic in 1919, and link. 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I am fully aware of the fact that plagiarism is unacceptable and i appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I apologise for the fact that this has slipped in. I will be the first to admit that this particular section of text was full of jargon and did not explain his actions. To explain the situation, the issue of Latvian independence was a complex one with several Wikipedia articles including the subject in their text, to name but a few; the Red Army, White army, Latvian History. To reply to your comment I have added a wikilink to the latvian history of the 20th century to try and meet your concern. Woodym555 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The revised text is a great improvement. Little is visible in the source, but it says that little clearly. However, if this is how you compose, other text may have slipped in by accident. Do check. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have will check the article as you suggest. I composed the articles by looking at several different sources and compiling the evidence. Some of the original information was based around the emotive HMSHood bio. I write the text on Word and then wikilink it later and though this process is not perfect it does work, although in this case it has failed. Some of the basis for this article has slipped in and i apologise for that. Woodym555 23:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not regard this as disqualifying (which is why I'm not going to fix it); but MoS says that year should be wikilinked only when
    • The year is particularly important for the article.
    • The date has year, month and day; it is then wikilinked to allow readers to chose how it is formatted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed all of the year wikilinks except the first instance of dates in the two World Wars. I have left these to show the context in which the battle was fought. I hope this assuages your concerns. Woodym555 12:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support LordHarris 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I started making WP:MOS corrections, but there are more than I can finish. Please read WP:MOSBOLD, WP:ITALICS and WP:DASH. Sample edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the gap between addressing your comments, i was on holiday. I have now taken out the italics in the article, The only bold is in the table of awards, should these be removed? All dashes conform to the WP:MOS as far as i can see. Thanks for your attention. Woodym555 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Support 1a. The problem is a serious shortage of commas—is this article conducting a war against commas? Nearly every sentence seems to need one. For example:
    • "In World War II, as Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet Cunningham led British naval forces in several Mediterranean ..."—
    • "Cunningham was known for his lack of enthusiasm for field sports although he did enjoy"
    • "This operation was intended to find and destroy the Goeben and the Breslau but they evaded the British fleet[11] and"
    • "In 1911 he was given command of the destroyer HMS Scorpion which he commanded throughout the war." Ungrammatical without.
      • What is ungrammatical about it? Do you mean ungrammatical without the period? Would you prefer it if it were "In 1911 he was given command of the destroyer HMS Scorpion, which he commanded throughout the war"
  • And things such as:
    • "1902–1903"—This should be "and".Tony 13:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With respect no it should not. If you were to say "1902 and 1903" this would suggest he was doing the course for the entirety of bth 1902 and 1903. This is simply not the case. If anything it should say 1902 to 1903. That is what the dash is for, it is in place of the "to". I have changed it to "In the Winter of 1902-1903...
Or "during 1902 and 1903" ... what was there wasn't clear. Tony
      • I have now conducted a thorough copy edit on the article [1] taking your concerns into account. I am not conducting a "War of commas" per se, i simply feel that the serial comma clogs up articles and does not let them flow. I was taught, rightly or wrongly, that a comma never precedes "and". However, i have implemented the serial comma in this piece to assuage your concerns. I will be happy to help with any further concerns. Thanks Woodym555 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further issues. A few commas have been added, but more are required for easy reading. Commas are to some extent a matter of personal style, and no one can object if you locate your text on the low side of normal WRT to comma usage. But it's significantly below the low side at the moment.
  • Wondering why professor, grandfather", "clergy", "servants", "governesses" and "mathematics" are linked. And it goes on: "political"? These are dictionary words that English-language beginners can look up if they need to; please don't dilute the high-value links with these useless ones. Audit throughout required.
    • Removed some "dictionary definitions" throughout the article.
  • "first class marks"—check throughout for double adjectives, which in BrEng are quite likely to require a hyphen.
    • Checked
  • "Alon"?
    • Done
  • "messing around in boats." Breach of MOS—see quotations (final punctuation).
    • Done
  • "obtained a 'very good'"—See MOS on "words as words".
    • Done
  • "For his performance Cunningham was rewarded by a promotion to Commander and awarded the Distinguished Service Order." Comma after "performance? Grammar is wrong in the second clause: "and received the".
    • Done

See if you can find fresh eyes to sift through it. Tony 00:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given that you just rewrote the WP:MOS, i don't think i can be criticised for not seeing those particular points. The italics for "Very good" had previously been removed for being in breach of the MOS. I have fixed all of the problems that you have stated above although i know you meant some of them to be specific examples of a general problem. I think a few is understating it somewhat given that i added in about 50 ad rephrased certain sentences to avoid commas. I personally think that the commas in the article are now sufficient, that being said i have asked for help from the WP:MILHIST project. Thanks Woodym555 11:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (added done for clarification' Woodym555 14:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Oppose. I accept that any comments are subjective and the information is comprehensive, but:

  1. One concern is readability. IMO, some the prose is jerky and does not flow, eg the para on "Childhood". I have rewritten the section and hope it deals with your concerns Reads much better.
  2. "...schooled at several institutions." On one hand this could be better said, perhaps "... attended several schools and colleges." Either way, it says little - do we know which schools? The schools are noted in the childhood section. I didn't think that the schools and instituions alone waranted mention in the lead. Fair point, the Dublin school(s) would be of interest, if known, and the phrase still grates with me - but that's subjective.I meant to remove it earlier, but didn't, i have removed it now!
  3. reference to Scots background repeated unnecessarily. Removed in the rewrite Ok
  4. "By the end of his course he was anxious to seek adventure at sea; consequently he committed numerous minor misdemeanors ...", how were the misdemeanours a consequence? To be honest I have no idea what link there is, i have rephrased those sentences. Ok.
  5. Naval Brigade should be capitalised and could be linked to the article. Done Ok.
  6. "Their arrival there was a catalyst that contributed ..." - "there" is tautologous and I think this is an incorrect use of "catalyst". Howabout "Their arrival contributed ..."? I didn't write that section, it was recently rewritten, Anyway i have fixed it now Yeah, I didn't think there was a single author, just your fate to be holding the baby. Often official sources are verbose, and they're often referred to.
  7. Explanation of "bar" (in relation to awards) not explained at first use. I thought that was the idea of wikilinks. V true, I didn't spot that the first one was linked. Mea culpa. Perhaps "Two" should not be capitalised?
  8. ".. return from the Baltics ..." - plural? Baltics meaning "Baltic states" ergo plural, Baltics is commonly used True, again. It caught me out, however, so I suggest that "Baltic States" is used & the link points to the "Baltic States" article, I think one exists. On the other hand, was ABC involved with all three States?I haven't done any of the above suggestions, stay with me, i read up on it and they were expressly forbidden from maing landfall, as such i have linked it to the Baltic Sea instead
  9. "... return and protect the Italian cruiser Pola." What was wrong with the Pola? added in: which had earlier been hit and disabled by the Formidable's torpedo bombers. Ok
  10. I think that there's too much detail of individual operations - these are covered in the respective main articles. The peer review and A-Class review asked for these sections to be expanded in order to provide a background of his activity. These were his major attacks and form a key part of his legacy. As such i think they should be included. Ok, I stick to my view, but it was subjective anyway, but they don't emphasise his contribution (except for the negotiations with Godfroy.
  11. On the other hand, in respect of Matapan, there's a story of how ABC, aware of Axis agents in Alexandria, attempted to mislead them before sailing. It's not mentioned. Its and unverifiable story. The sources i have looked at: Churchills book, Salvo and Simpson do not mention it. As such should i still add it? Don't know given the status review. I've seen it more than once, so I'll dig around - it's a good one if true.I agree, its just i haven't seen it so couldn't possibly try to write about it!

There are other points, this will do for now. Folks at 137 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to these points. Your other points are welcome... Woodym555 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your courteous responses. Replies above. I'll continue reading later, but I have learnt info already. Thanks. Folks at 137 22:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my replies to your replies if that makes any sense; i have fixed the additional problems and some old ones. Thanks Woodym555 23:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found a reference to the Alexandria deception and added it (took 2 changes). Please review and change as you see fit. Folks at 137 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to change, looks good. A worthy addition. What do you think about whether it should be First World War or World War I? I notice this was changed and reverted within the space of an hour. Thanks Woodym555 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support Please fix all images (set to default size) IAW WP:MoS#Images. — BQZip01 — talk 04:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed them all. They are now at default size except the Matapan map which calls on the provision:Except in the case of detailed maps and drawings. The meaning is lost at default size. Thanks for your comments Woodym555 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to your assertion: ABSOLUTELY! Excellent! Great job! You have my support. On a related note, there is a discussion going on the talk page regarding this. Your opinion would be useful in shaping the the FA process. Once again, excellent article. — BQZip01 — talk 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just in passing and very nitpicky, I noticed that the actual awards he received aren't listed in the infobox, only the general division of award. Also, it seems a bit stylistically off to denote that he received the DSO and two bars with '**' rather than saying 'two bars'. RHB - Talk 15:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have adde Knight Grand Cross to the infobox. To the best of my knowledge the Order of the Thistle only has one division, i have added military division to the Order of Merit. They are listed in the Honours section at the bottom of the page as well. With regards to the **, they are a comon British Convention. The article itself refers to the Medal bar within the text. It is a matter of opinion really. Thanks for the comments Woodym555 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ** convention is mentioned in the Medal bar article. It's a new one on me, too. Is it purely British & Commonwealth to use bars (there's a mention of separate US practice)? Folks at 137 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is just a quirky British convention. You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals for any further info or to clear it up. Woodym555 19:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added detail from [2]. There is an apparant discrepancy: the existing article says that ABC commanded HMS Lochinvar at Port Edgar but the "Officers" site calls it HMS Columbine - which is supported by a ref at [3]: "HMS Columbine: 1916: a site at Queensferry, Port Edgar (north of Edinburgh, Scotland) was acquired by the Admiralty and developed as a purpose-built Torpedo Boat Destroyer depot." Also, if one is listing the actions - even major ones - during his tenure as Naval CinC Med, then it's a v long list. It's arguable whether Taranto and Matapan were the most significant. Do we limit to where he was present - then Crete is out, as are some of the significant actions while he was allied naval CinC for the various landings. there's also a list of various civic (hon Freeman of cities and livery companies) and foreign awards, if they're relevant and not OTT. Folks at 137 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that both names were in use. A search for HMS Lochinvar on google immediately comes up with a view of a minesweeping base. A search for HMS Columbine comes up with info about a torpedo testing base at Port Edgar. I think we have to go with the published biographies, Simpson, and Cunningham himself, state it was Lochinvar.
In the infobox i selectively picked commands, he had so many i think naming all of them is counter-productive. Again naming actions would extend the infobox further. I think Matapan and taranto are key battles, the Navy website has both in detail. I think the previous infobox was fine to be honest, the current one is too lengthy, listing all of his commands.
The honours are tricky, i think all of the foreign honous should be listed such as the Legion of Merit and the Legion of Honour. I think all of the honorary masons etc should probably be excluded. They could be listed in the Honours section i suppose in a line if it was deemed neccessary. I will add the foreign ones in soon. Woodym555 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, gone with your preference and reverted the command list in the info box: I don't wish to muddy the water at this stage. Not sure what you mean by "honorary masons". The refs to "honorary freeman" are not masonic, they are civic recognitions, eg Freeman of the Cities of London, Manchester, etc. See Freedom of the City. Folks at 137 05:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was late, i was tired, sorry for the misnaming. (been watching Davinci code recently, freemasons everywhere) I am aware of the differences in civic titles. I think that they could be added in a sentence such as;
Cunningham was also given the freedom of several cities and other Honorary titles such Honorary Member the Company of Merchants of Edinburgh.
Or we could go the whole hog with Cunningham was awarded the title Honorary Freeman: Fishmongers' Company, Company of Shipwrights; Borough of Hove, City of Edinburgh, City of Manchester, City of London, City of Lincoln. He was made an Honorary Member of the Company of Merchants of Edinburgh, an Honorary Bencher Lincoln's Inn, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (Hon. FRCSE)and an Honorary Member, Royal Institution of Naval Architects. (Is the Lincoln's Inn bench the same as the Surgeons of England? Need to consult someone knowledgeable or not include it at all.)
Personally i think the first one is better, though needs refinement, it is less congested and i don't see the titles listed anywhere else (on other pages). Woodym555 11:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: MOS violation with date reference: In the winter of 1902–1903. Needs to be replaced with neutral wording per MOS. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed, replaced with Late 1902, early 1903. Woodym555 10:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense; the objection would only apply if it were ambiguous; since there is no question that Portsmouth has winter in January, and that this was January 1903, the original wording was impeccable; the revision is ungrammatical. Changing to support in reaction to such criticism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, it's Mrs Nonsense herself. Well, do change your declaration on that basis, if that's how you like to play it. Careful not to discredit yourself. Tony 14:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony can you look over it now, it has had some revisions by Folks at 137. Do you still oppose? Are there any problems? ThanksWoodym555 10:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Andrew_Cunningham,_1st_Viscount_Cunningham_of_Hyndhope/archive1&oldid=1138454492"