Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/AHS Centaur/Archive 1

AHS Centaur

I've just performed a pretty solid expansion on the AHS Centuar article, based primarily on the text Three Minutes of Time by A.E. Smith (cited in the reference section of the article). As I only have the text for a short time (it is on loan from my university's library), I am primarily looking for particular points in the article which require or would benefit from a more specific reference citation (i.e. page number).

While we're at it, some help with grammar, tone, and the style/content of the introduction section would be appreciated (writing intros being one of my greater weaknesses on Wikipedia), as well as suggestions for moving the article to B or GA status. -- saberwyn 11:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I have done the following:

I've added <ref> citations to every sentance I can cite from the text I have.
I've merged some of the sections together, eliminating excess headings.
"See Also" and excessive/inappropriate categories have been removed. As an aside, the "World War II submarines of Japan" appears to have been inserted because this article is the only location of information on Japanese submarine I-177.
One hidden table (Survivors) is now permanently showing.
Bullets in Memorial section have been converted into crude prose.

Further things I feel I need some assistance with, based on the comments by Kirill and Hossen:

The hidden table laying out the travels on Centaur's first voyage: left as table or converted to prose?
Additional sources/information would have to be added at a later date, as I only have the one book, and don't particularly wish to go looking for more at this exact moment in time.
I have no clue as to the writing of a good lead section, could someone either (a) explain to me what the lead section should contain, or (b) take it upon themselves to provide a example for my later use by writing up the section appropriately and letting me know what points it covers?

Thanks again. -- saberwyn 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

This is a good start, but still needs quite a bit of work. The answer to your main question: citations should be added for as many points as possible. The guidelines at WP:MILHIST#CITE outline the minimal requirements; but, particularly if you're planning to take this article to WP:FAC, footnoting every sentence is not entirely out of the question.

Aside from that, some more general suggestions:

The lead could stand to be a bit longer.
The show/hide tables are unnecessary, given how short the blocks are; just put them right into the text, or float the boxes along the margins.
The short one-paragraph sections should ideally be merged into larger blocks.
The "See also" section should be eliminated, if possible.
Some of the categories should probably be removed, unless I'm missing something obvious. (World War II submarines of Japan?!)
The bulleted list in the "Memorial" section should be rewritten as prose.

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 04:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the update:

Overall, very nice; the article is much improved now.
I'd turn the first hidden table into a prose paragraph; I think there's enough information there to make that a better option than a floated table. It's not a big deal either way, though.
The lead section should, generally, be written last, once the article is basically complete. One thing I've found useful is to go through the article and write up a summary sentence or two for each section (or section-length block of text, if they're widely uneven); that should be a good place to start for a lead section.

Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hossen27

A great improvement on the article but it does need a little work to get to a higher class level. Kirill has pretty solidly summed up the minor problems. But more sources would be required later on, there have been a few books written about the sinking, references from all of them would be helpful. besides that and what Kirill has pointed out a very solid and informative article, well done. Hossen27 12:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dowling

I agree with the points raised by Kirill and Hossen, especially in relation to the improvement to this article's quality. My suggestions for further improvements are:

Swap the photo of the ship with the propaganda poster so that the photo appears in the infobox.
- Done -- saberwyn 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Armament section of the infobox should have a post-1943 entry to highlight that the ship was unarmed at the time she was attacked.
- Done -- saberwyn 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the ship's sinking should cover the possibility that the attack may have been the result of Nakagawa's incompetence rather than a deliberate war crime. Axis naval activity in Australian waters discuses this and has a source you can cite. To provide context, it may also be worth noting that US submarines accidently sank several Japanese hospital ships.
- Don't know how/where to work this in. -- saberwyn 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The attack on Centaur should be placed in the context of the submarine campaign the Japanese mounted against the Australian east coast during 1942 and 1943. It's important to highlight that this wasn't an isolated attack as the Japanese targeted Australian merchant shipping during this period.
- Don't know how/where to work this in. -- saberwyn 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is possible, but it would be interesting if you could find some material on the impact the sinking had on the Australian war effort. The attack definitely caused widespread public anger, and it would be interesting if you could find any information on this hardening Australians' attitudes towards the Japanese.
- Don't have access to this information. -- saberwyn 00:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PocklingtonDan

Not much to comment on here since the article is relatively short and there's not much to get your teeth into. I know nothing about the circumstances surrounding this ship, but generally:

The article looks a bit short. Even the most obscure topics can normally be fleshed out with more detail given enough research.
"Australian naval forces" - can this not be wikilinked to the Australian navy? Or is this a separate entity now than when the ship wsa active?
" 146,750 pounds sterling" - is there some reason you don't include the "£" symbol before the figure?
"this large smokestack was more a concession to tradition than of any practical nature" - I don't understand, why would you not want a large smokestack, you wouldn't want diesel smoke pouring over the deck would you?
Charon and Gorgon - can these be wikilinked?
"and the act of sinking a ship so marked was considered to be a war crime.... The Japanese acknowledged the role of I-177 in 1979, in an official history" Were the crew prosecuted? Was there talk of them being prosecuted? if not, why not?
cites - is there any other possible source of info other than the Smith book? It would be great to get some info from the Japanese side of events.
What was the background to the sinking? Was the submarine ordered to sink the ship? Did the crew report seeing any submarines prior to being sunk? Did the ship routinely take any anti-submarine measures? Is there any indication identification of the ship as a hospital ship might have been confused?

Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order -- saberwyn 13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I've been able to come up with so, with access to only one dedicated source. Its as much as I can give without word-for-word citing the source, or drifting to areas that would be off topic, in my consideration. It will be a while before I can expend the time or the effort to track down another source - if anyone else wants to contribute based on another source, they are more than welcome to... its not my article.
During WWII, there was the Royal Australian Navy, vessels under Admiralty command with Australian crew, and the Australian Merchant Navy. Its the term that was in there before I started editing, and if you can think of a better alternate, please change it.
Primarily the lack of a pound symbol on my keyboard, and to (in my eye) better distinguis between the pound sterling cited here and the Australian pounds cited for the conversion in the next section. I've inserted it, see how it looks
Its not the size, its the extreme size that was unusual. I'm no naval engineer, but the extreme size in relation to the diesel engine was stated in the text over a couple of paragraphs, so I as the layman have assumed some significance. Slightly reworded
Not at this point in time, because any article would be "Ship was a freighter operated by Alfred Holt's Blue Funnel Line.", no more. If it turns out that one or both ships are historically notable, and somebody can write an article, a wikilink would be appropriate.
As I understand, I-177 was sunk with no survivors, and the officer commanding (not aboard at the time of sinking) was prosecuted for unrelated crimes. It was initially uncertain which submarine of the class had been responsible, as only one sailor observed the sub, after the Centaur sank.
there are plenty of other sources, see the Australian War Memorial page on Centaur, in particular their reading list. As stated above. the Smith text is the only one I have access to now and for the foreseeable future.
Form what I can gather, background is "Ship and submarine at same location at same time, armed submarine sinks unarmed ship". No submarines were sighted before the attack (this was at 4 in the morning). The ship did not take anti-submarine measures, as they believed themselves protected by the Geneva Conventions, although they did take anti-mine measures. As for confusion, User:Nick Dowling has indicated a section of Axis naval activity in Australian waters that may be of use, but I am uncertain as to how it can be worked into the text as it stands.