Talk:HMS Devonshire (39)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Someone should probably disambiguate & write up previous ships by this name... but I don't know much of anything about them. -FZ 15:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War, Menorca[edit]

This section does not make sense. I would hazard a guess it has been auto translated from another source, but i propose removing if sense can't be made of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read it through a couple of times and can't make head nor tail of it, or whether it even involves Devonshire at all. There's a brief note already on her involvement in the surrender of Menorca, and given that the other material was unintelligible, I have removed it. Benea (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect pennant numbers applied to numerous pages ![edit]

HMS Devonshire (39) is a typical example of numerous Royal Navy ship pages citing an incomplete pennant number. The Royal Navy pennant numbering system is explained on another Wiki page. Simply quoting the number alone is daft, as a number of ships would be using the number at any one time. I suspect HMS Devonshires full pennant to be C39 during WWII. Can someone correct this annoying problem please...............-- (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you've read this off the wikipedia page, you've apparently forgotten the detail that capital ships like aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, etc were not initially allocated the flag superiors, while the smaller vessels (destroyers, minesweepers, etc) were. So while Devonshire had the complete pennant number 39, the C was a later addition. Other ships also used 39 as a pennant number, but with a flag superior. So the destroyer HMS Amazon (D39) was D39, the sloop HMS Shearwater (L39) was L39. And Devonshire was just 39. Benea (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Devonshire (39)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Euryalus (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Well written

Some minor points:

  • Norwegian campaign
First paragraph: last sentence uses the phrase “by German aircraft” twice: suggest removing the first instance (and perhaps adding the word “again” before “near-missed”)
Good idea.
  • Operation menace:
First paragraph: “still Cunningham’s flagship” seems out of place at the end of this lengthy sentence. Can it be broken out into a sentence following?
See how it reads now.
The Poncelet reference verifies the sinking but not that it was deliberately scuttled. Is there an alternative word that could be used here (perhaps just "forcing it to sink"), or an additional reference that verifies that this was a deliberate act by the crew?
Nothing I have available gives any real detail, so I've changed to "helped to sink".
“Departed the Clyde on 31 ...” is missing the word August?
“On the 14th, Cunningham dispatched ...” for consistency this might be changed to “On 14 August, Cunningham dispatched”
I still prefer to use "st" or "nd" for dates in the same month to avoid repetition.
  • 1944-45
First sentence seems over-long.
She returned to duty with the Home Fleet at Scapa Flow in April 1944. This first sentence? Or do you mean the first sentence in the following paragraph, which I agree is too long?
What is a “half-sister” ship?
Suggest clarifying what Cashmore was by adding “the ship-breaking company” before the name.
I think that the issue was that the reader didn't know what Cashmore was, so I've spelled out the company's whole name.

2. Verifiable

  • checkY - Online refs all check out, as does Colledge FWIW. AGF on offline sources. No original research, no apparent copyvios.

3. Broad in coverage

  • checkY - though it would be nice to know more about the China station visit in 1932-33.

4. Neutral

  • checkY

5. Stable

  • checkY

6. Illustrated

  • Does the lead image also need a US-PD tag?. Otherwise, checkY - images are appropriately tagged, relevant and have suitable captions.
    • No, IWM images have a world-wide license.


  • checkY - No dabs, no broken links

Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: thanks for the ping, will come back to this within 24 hours. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to go. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]