Talk:HMS Cicala/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Images appropriately licensed.
• If you look closely at the forward gun mount of the ship in this photo, you can see that it's different than that of the aft gun. That's because it's QF Mk II gun on an anti-aircraft mount. Cicala was one of four Insect-class gunboats that remained home for the duration of the war. All of them received this modification to combat the Zeppelin threat and it was removed after the war. Basic details are available in Roger Banfil-Cook's River Gunboats: An Illustrated Encyclopedia
  ISBN 978-1-59114-614-8
  It's also got more details on what the ship was up to early in its career. If you can't borrow or buy it; I can add the necessary material myself. And there more detailed works on the ship's activities in Russia available.
• You've given the article a very good foundation, but there's a lot of meat missing. There's a lot of nautical jargon that's missing the necessary links in both the main body and the infobox. You need exact dates of construction in both places as well. You can use the GA-quality HMS Grasshopper (T85) article as a reference and as a source for the necessary links.
• I'm not sure that I trust Konstam on technical details as Banfil-Cook specifically states that the Insects were entirely built without armor, although I'm not sure that he'd call the half-inch plating that Konstam specifies as armor at all. I'd check the relevant volume of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships or H.P. Lenton's British and Empire Warships of the Second World War to see what they say. Again, I have both if you can't get copies of your own.
• Ping me whenever you've dealt with all of this; you've got a fair amount of work ahead of you, but I'm certainly not in any hurry and can hold this review as long as you want still work on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66, thanks for the review and information; it's clear I'm missing quite a lot of detail. I can't remember how I came at this article but it is outside my usual area and I don't have access to most of the sources needed. I think it best to withdraw this for now; maybe at some point I'll pick it up again - Dumelow (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]