Talk:HMS Hercules (1910)

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

Added some historical detail Fenton Robb 10:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be formatted in the RN template. I am too new to take this on yet, but if someone else did, I could have a go at filling in some more details. Fenton Robb 13:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation ZZ[edit]

At High Seas Fleet the count of German ships is reported as 11 battleships, 5 battlecruisers, 8 cruisers and 48t destroyers, however the numbers in Beatty's orders of 20th are 9 battleships, 5 battle cruiser, 7 light cruisers and 50 destroyers (Memorandum H.F. 0050/9, issued on 20 November 1918, by Admiral Sir David Beatty)] Hearsay evidence - two German destroyers failed to leave port.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Hercules (1910)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This article is in pretty good shape.

  • The displacement in the text and infobox doesn't match.
  • probably worth specifying that the secondary guns were in single mounts
  • After introducing BS as an abbreviation, suggest referring to 1st BS.
  • suggest linking mobilisation
    • Excellent idea!
  • link Home Fleet at first mention
    • Linked in the lede
  • link dreadnought at 16 dreadnoughts
    • Isn't this covered in the link for dreadnought battleships in the lede? Or is this just different enough?
  • the sentence beginning During this foray appears to be out of sequence
    • Moved earlier in the para, but I kinda think that it breaks the flow up a bit, what do you think?
      • I think it flows ok.
  • Agincourt should probably be linked
    • Good catch.
  • she was sold
  • images are all appropriately licensed and captioned.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate you looking this over. Let me know what you think of my changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No prob. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, and is illustrated by appropriately license images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HE shell use at Jutland ?[edit]

"One of her high-explosive (HE) shells penetrated through the upper superstructure and caused minor splinter damage. The second HE shell burst on hitting the upper hull armour,.." ? She would have been firing armour-piercing, not HE at naval targets ? Rcbutcher (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]