Talk:HMS King George V (41)

	HMS King George V (41) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 11, 2011 Good article nominee Listed March 18, 2011 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War II / Operation Majestic Titan This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force World War II task force Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

Here on a quick visit: am I right that a source identified as Tarrant is referenced? - but is not listed in the bibliography? (Is this just a case of yeahbut, look in the class article rather than the ship article? - if so, all it needs is for someone to copy the bibliographic details across, obv.) 82.26.114.161 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still have today,my late fathers postcard(with the picture of his battleship),HMS King George V,anchored in Tokyo Bay,at the end of the war.Mr Stuart King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.33.156 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, when it mentions the collision with the HMS Punjabi, it says that the battleship (King George V) sustained minimal damage. But in the HMS Punjabi article, it is stated that King George V sustained serious damage, and had to put in for repairs. This is pretty contradictory! Which version is correct? Anton1234 00:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KGV's bows were badly damaged in the collision, and a large gash was torn in them. She was still able to sail back to Liverpool for repairs though... its an interesting one. From the point of view of how she appeared, she was badly damaged. From a functional point of view, she was only lightly damaged, effecting handling and speed and little else. Martocticvs 19:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the extra operational history and rewrite of the Bismarck battle section. However i am not sure Bismark can be called Hoods victor as I thought it was in dispute if it was Bismark or the Prinz who fired the shell/shells which started the events which caused Hood to explode?

Sams37 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The theory that Eugen sank Hood can be totally disproved and is based on bad assumptions that Eugen's shells had a steeper angle of fall than Bismarck's, but in fact they had about the same angle of fall and the official German penetration data shows no chance of Eugen's projectiles penetrating belt OR deck of Hood at the known engagement ranges. Brooksindy (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping the article at Start-class for WP:MILHIST for now. Here are some suggestions for further improvement:

• There are a number of unsourced paragraphs or sentences; I've added {{cn}} tags to highlight them for you. This is the main issue holding the article up from B-class.

• Done

• The lead is too short; it needs to summarize the entire article, per WP:LEAD.

• Done

• It's also been determined that navweaps.com doesn't meet the requirements for FAC, so if you intend on taking the article there eventually, I'd find a replacement for it.

Would you recommend I just delete that little bit? Or do you think that is useful to know?

• Just to note, citations should go directly after the punctuation, no spaces in between. I fixed this for you in the current citations, but remember this for the future.

• Done - Also thanks for the heads up :)

• Right now, the article relies on only one source - for a topic as well documented as this ship is, there should really be more than just Garzke & Dulin. Try finding books on the campaigns KGV was involved in - they can usually give more supporting details than the specialist ship sources. This will be crucial for GA-class and higher.

• Semi done

• The lead image is problematic - we need an IWM photo number to verify that it actually is an IWM photo. Try contacting the uploader (though I don't know if s/he is still active).

• Removed the lead image and replaced it with the one you suggested.

• File:King_George_V_class_battleship_1945.jpg - this a good image (even though it's washed out a bit on the right side) and the copyright status is clear.
• File:HMS King George V after collision.jpg - even though it's small, it's interesting and shows the collision damage.

• Fixed - also added the collision image, as it helps illustrate the collision damage the KGV suffered

I hope these suggestions help you with the article. Nice work already! Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, something else: most of the technical info really belongs in the class article. The individual ship articles should mainly contain a summary of the class article and any aspects of the ship that were different from her sisters (i.e., if additional AA armament was added during her career, etc.). There is a bit of gray area on this (for instance, Sturmvogel prefers a somewhat greater level of technical detail than I do), so it's your call, but I'd suggest looking at other ship FA- and A-class articles (you can find a list of ship FAs here) for a good yardstick. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources you might be able to get (inter-library loan can usually get you access to books) - check worldcat.org for a listing of libraries that have these books. King George V class battleships, Battleships of World War II is viewable on Google.books, British battleships of World War II, this article in Warship might be of some use, and this book could be useful as well (though the Osprey books are hit-or-miss, I've found). Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks very much for taking the time to add all of the comments. Very useful for a newcomer like me! Thurgate (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, this article contains some 14 lines (in two sub-sections), just on the Bismark action. Thats quite a lot of detail, including such extracts as: "The British re-located the Bismark at 10:30 on 26 May" and "Her topsides were wrecked, [Bismarks] and a large fire burned amidships". Is not such detail already covered in the appropiate article?

I would suggest that both sub-sections need drastic pruning (probably into one). Yes, KGV was involved in the Bismark action, but only as a part of the whole. And the Bismark action was only part of KGV's operational career. Therefore, to avoid 'undue weight', this section should be shortened.

I will try and prune it a bit, but the main reason as to why their is so much on the Bismarck action is that all my sources focus on that action. Thurgate (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how is this German battleship's name spelt? In that ships article, it is spelt with a 'C'; i.e. Bismarck. In this article, it is spelt without. Personally, I prefer it with, (I'm sure I've seen something on the subject of ships ships' names, foreign words and so on, in the MoS, but I can't remember the guideline). For me, consistency is the name of the game.

Ive changed all mentions of the Bismark to its proper spelling of Bismarck, as all of my sources for some reason called it Bismark. Thurgate (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do other editors think?

RASAM 16:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The servers have been playing up over the last few hours, hence the copying; sorry.RASAM (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurgate (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI, the German ship was named after Otto von Bismarck and so the correct spelling is the same, with a 'c'.

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS King George V (41)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• See also section is unused, except for interwiki and portal box. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted Thurgate (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Refit section table needs more info on the locations. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my sources, I can find no mention of location (not including the two locations that my books provided) Thurgate (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest you look through other sources, especially as you only have 3 book sources.
• Section Action with Bismarck needs a main article template to the battle page. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed Thurgate (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This article has many grammatical errors, I fixed one, but there are still many errors. Can I ask for consistency and correction of caps? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 21:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My terrible grammar skills strike again. I'll go over the article again and correct my mishaps! Thurgate (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed all of the mistakes I can see, but my grammar is pretty iffy, so I have probably not caught everything. Thurgate (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Goto the guild. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 01:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • AustralianRupert has just done a lot of copy-editing on the article, are you now happy with it or do you think I should still send it to the guild? Thurgate (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Congrats to AR, you're good. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Source comments:
  • Greenwich, not Greenwhich, correct?
    • Fixed by AustralianRupert
  • Sort the sources alphabetically.
    • Fixed by AustralianRupert
  • I would not support Uboat.net as a reliable source. Could you change it out or support it with another? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 01:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted it as the information wasn't massively useful. Thurgate (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest acquireing more sources before moving up the ladder; I have quite a few at my library and I might help you get it to A (if you wish). WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be most appreciated as my library is a bit thin at the moment. Also to be honest, at the moment I'm just trying to get all of the King George V battleship class up to a GA and then ill go from their. Thurgate (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand section Construction or merge with section Design. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed - I've merged it with the Design section as per your suggestion. Thurgate (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall more links would be appreciated, especially in the body. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki-links? Thurgate (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the links as per your suggestion, do you want more links or do you think the amount at the moment will suffice? Thurgate (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty good. I'll pass, on the condition you'll allow me to help you with the rest. (WikiCup points are nice, especially when you're competing) :P WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be sweet, as I need all the help I can get :D. Thanks for reviewing the article and I look forward to working with you! Thurgate (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm a little surprised this is a good article. I had a run through it just now and found a lot of small fixes and errors that really should have been caught before this was passed. The most glaring discrepancy that I can see at the moment is in the Bismarck section. At one point KGV is in the thick of the action, Bismarck fighting back fiercely, and then suddenly Rodney and KGV go home because of shortage of fuel. It reads -

At 09:27 a shell hit Bismarck, penetrating the hydraulic machinery in turret 'Anton' and disabled it, causing the guns to run down to maximum depression. Her topsides were wrecked, and a large fire burned amidships. By that time King George V was having trouble with her main battery, and every gun missed at least one salvo; due to failures in the safety interlocks for antiflash protection. Both Rodney and King George V had little fuel left and returned to port at very low speed, escorted by eleven destroyers to guard against German air or submarine attack.

I appreciate that there's little of the story left to tell, but it should be made clear what happens to Bismarck and the extent to which KGV plays a part in the final sinking. Does the user who nominated this for review have details on this that could be included? Benea (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck sank at 10.39 according to Rodney's log, when the British battleships were already withdrawing with the German visibly sinking by the stern. It seems obvious that Rodney's heavier armament (378 16-inch fired, 706 6-inch and four 24.5-inch torpedoes, one of whose unmistakably large impact holes can be seen in the sunken German wreck, confirming Rodney's battle-log claim of a torpedo hit at 9.58, the only occasion when one battleship torpedoes another) did most of the fatal damage, but KG5 must have added quite a few holes. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data block says commissioned December 1940 but operational history says commissioned October 1940. Which is correct? Brooksindy (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Jutland listed in the Honours and Awards section of the Infobox? 68.103.51.244 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, as this ship's predecessor (1911) was in the Battle of Jutland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_King_George_V_(1911) 68.103.51.244 (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Royal Navy, unit honours are inherited by succeeding units. See here in the article from the Royal Navy's Navy News titled "Photographic Memories" on page 12. They list all of Warspite's honours and explain how they are awarded battle honours and Cassells, Vic (2000). The Destroyers: their battles and their badges. East Roseville, NSW: Simon & Schuster. p. 1. ISBN 0-7318-0893-2. OCLC 46829686. explains how they are inherited. This explains the Commonwealth system as to why some Australian, New Zealand and Canadian ships have battle honours from before their countries' respective founding. Llammakey (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background information on how honours are inherited, and for updating the article appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.51.244 (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Action with Bismarck" section I've added the missing conversion to nautical miles, but are we sure these aren't already nautical miles? I don't have a copy of the cited source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]