# Talk:HMS Aldenham

Hi! Noticed your recent addition to the HMS Aldenham, and since it appears to be unsupported by any of the sources offered ("MTSM motor torpedo boat disabled Eridge"), could you please let me know where does this information come from. This is important to me since I nominated the article for GA review and any unsourced claims are dealbreakers there. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
NB: The information on the Eridge being torpedoed by MTSM-228 found in the Eridge article is completely unsupported. The "Ships of the Royal Navy" offered at the article does say Eridge was damaged, but not how or by whom.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
On the second thought, the action where Eridge was torpedoed has absolutely nothing to do with Aldenham, so I undid the addition as unsourced and offtopic. Aldenham merely towed Eridge - the engagement with MTSM-228 involved Eridge, Croome and Hursley. Hope you don't mind.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, a published, reliable source like Greene, Jack and Massignani, Alessandro (2004). The Black Prince And The Sea Devils: The Story Of Valerio Borghese And The Elite Units Of The Decima Mas. Da Capo Press, p. 40. ISBN 0306813114, states unequivocally that Eridge was torpedoed by an MTSM off El Daba (Egypt) when both destroyers were shelling Axis facilities (See also HMS ALDENHAM (L 22) -  Type III, Hunt-class Escort Destroyer). Aldenham took part of the main action according to the cited sources, therefore the enemy craft(s) she and her sister faced are worth to be referred to.
On the other hand, besides being supported not by a newspaper, but by an experts' book, the mention of the craft which torpedoed the RN unit is as relevant as other parts of the article, such as "She assisted HMS Eskimo removing wounded when she was attacked and hit by the Luftwaffe on 15 July" or "Each destroyer fired 500 four-inch (100 mm) shells against bunkers and barracks on the island between 09:00 and 11:20. The town of Pag itself was targeted by the destroyers for an hour at 14:00,". In both cases, the reference to the Luftwaffe (which didn't attacked Aldenham in this occasion) in the first and the number of shells fired or the targets in the second could be also considered "off-topic" following this standard.--Darius (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. First of all, your initial edit was not referenced at all. Kemp, p.192 specifically lists Eridge, Croome and Hursley taking part in the bombardment, not Aldenham. Obviously Greene/Massignani differs in this respect. Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other but I do not really care for additions of unsourced material such as the one made before by you. I'll check with more experienced editors in the field which source Kemp or Greene is to be trusted on this one if you don't mind.
The second source you offered (naval-history.net) is not a WP:RS - please remove it as it does not meet WP:V. Finally, the article uses {{harvnb}} references, please use that form per WP:CITEVAR. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: The above material is copied here from User talk:DagosNavy#HMS Aldenham

Now I read the Greene's passage on the El Daba, the source does not actually say that Aldenham took part in bombardment of El Daba, but that it was assigned coastal bombardment duty as were Eridge, Croome and Hursley. This is probably a violation of WP:SYNTH - it is quite possible Aldenham bombarded another target in the area, but neither Greene nor Kemp don't really say anything about this. Is there a source saying specifically that Aldenham bombarded El Daba with Eridge or not?--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Try here (page 241), or here. Regarding Greene & Massignani, take in mind that the only fact of being detailed to bombard the coast along HMS Eridge and other destroyers makes the action (the shelling and the torpedo attack) relevant for Aldenham, even if we assume (per Kemp) that the latter didn't fire a single round that night.--Darius (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Aldenham (L22)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 08:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Be interesting to review a ship article nominated by someone other than Parsecboy or Sturmvogel, so here I am. ;-)  Just have one other GAN to get to beforehand... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Toolbox check -- No dab or EL issues. 
Prose/coverage

General point, countries and continents don't generally need to be linked (e.g. Africa isn't really necessary) unless it's an obsolete political form (e.g. Italy makes sense).
Delinked as suggested.
She assisted HMS Eskimo removing wounded when she was attacked and hit by the Luftwaffe on 15 July. -- I'm unsure just which ship was attacked and hit here...
Clarified.
The ship broke in two and her bow sank quickly, followed by her stern a little later, at 15:29. -- Just to clarify, was it her bow or her stern that sank at 15:29?
The source doesn't say specifically. Freivogel (p.67) says Brod se slomio na dva dijela, pramac je relativno brzo potonuo, a krma malo poslije. Kao mjesto potonuća navodi se 44°30′ N i 14°50′ E, a vrijeme potonuća 15 sati i 29 minuta. (The ship broke in two, the bow sank relatively quickly, and the stern a while later. Sinking site is indicated as 44°30′ N and 14°50′ E, with the time of the sinking as 15:29.) I assume that the time applies to the stern for the following reason: Since the ships were moving at a speed of 20kts after setting sail at 15:00, they could have covered up to 18km of sea by 15:29. The part of the sea off Pag closest to Karlobag (the primary target and the area from which one would sail around the Škrda islet to reach Ist going between Olib and Planik islands as indicated by the sources, is less than 5km away from the place of sinking. Since the ships would have covered the length in far less than 29 minutes, I can only assume that the stern sank at 15:29. The assumption is further reinforced by this account of the mining, indicating that the ships departed to Ist at 15:00 and that Aldenham struck the mine five minutes later. (At 20kts, this is just about right for a 5km distance.) I did not specify the five minutes since I'm not entirely sure whether the BBC project is an acceptably reliable source or not. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, based on the above I think just leave it how you've written it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Structure/images -- Look fine. 
Referencing -- Still to review at this point... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Refs look okay. Passing as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess the wreck was rediscovered in 1999: I've just seen an episode of "Tajne Jadrana", Yugoslav 1973 TV Mini Series, I'm sorry I can't find any specific link. As I recollect, the depth of wreck site was 82 meters, the wreck was on it's side (left?), upper edge of the deeper propeler was at 75 m, they used the other prop to tie a rope for diver's movements. Cheers. Alekol (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)