Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Courageous class aircraft carrier/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 22:38, 2 June 2012 [1].

Courageous class aircraft carrier[edit]

Courageous class aircraft carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These "large light cruisers" were the brainchild of Sir Jackie Fisher, First Lord of the Admiralty, during World War I, but were too lightly armored to have be of much use after World War I. All three were converted to aircraft carriers during the 1920s as a result of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty that severely limited the tonnage of capital ships that each nation could muster. Courageous was the first ship sunk by the Germans in World War II, Glorious was the first aircraft carrier sunk in a surface action, and only Furious survived the war before being scrapped. The article received a MilHist ACR about a year and a half ago and I've tweaked it since then to better meet the FAC criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • It's looking very good so far. "charthouse" could use a link. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done by somebody.
  • "untenable": unbearable? uninhabitable? uncomfortable?
  • "which allowed the ship to ... or to speedily fly off ...": so that the ship could ... or could speedily fly off ... ("which" dangles.)
  • "46-by-48-foot (14.0 × 14.6 m)": by, ×
    • Fixed
  • After I substituted an "also", we have: "Furious's long exhaust ducting had also proved to be a bad idea as it restricted the size of the hangars, and thus the number of aircraft that could be carried, and it hampered landing operations. By 1939 both ships could carry 34,500 imperial gallons (157,000 L; 41,400 US gal) of petrol." That's kind of a non-sequitur.
  • "an increase of over 3,000 long tons (3,000 t).": I changed that to "increases", assuming both figures were increases of over 3K long tons; correct that if it's wrong please.
  • ".75 inches": You know this, but in case anyone wants to look it up: see WP:MOSNUM#Decimal points. (Search throughout this article for .75)
  • "equally divided between three boiler rooms": The argument for "among" is stronger here.
  • Courageous_class_aircraft_carrier#Propulsion: Several missing periods/full stops and a missing space.
  • Different subsections shouldn't have the same name.
  • "were removed in 1926–27": Some of the work in 1926 and some in 1927? ("1926 and 1927") In one of the years, but you don't know which? ("1926 or 1927") During a one-year span beginning some time in 1926? ("fiscal year" works sometimes, other times "and" or "or" suffice, if the special time period is not worth explaining). Moral: avoid dashes when they're ambiguous.
    • clarified.
  • "HE": define at first occurrence
  • "to explode the torpedo": "explode" isn't wrong, but "detonate" sounds a little better.
  • "vent the underwater explosion to the surface rather than into the ship": Better is "deflect the underwater explosion to the surface, away from the ship"
  • So far so good otherwise down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Courageous_class_aircraft_carrier#Pre-war service. Very readable, given the subject matter. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I made the edits I was asking for; please check to make sure I got it right. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

Comments

  • I tweaked a few things in the article.
    • Hi Kirk, a few replies while Sturm's busy. Tweaks look good. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the range is cited correctly for the ships - for furious the infobox has 4300nmi instead of the prose's 5300nmi this might be just a typo, for the other two ships the article says there's no endurance figures, but the infobox has figures. There's also no citations for the nmi at x speed for any of the ships. And the battlecruiser class article doesn't have these figures in the infobox so maybe you can just delete it.
  • During the Second World War, Furious, the only surviving ship, was fitted with.. the only surviving ship seemed weird in that sentence. Also, I wasn't clear in the rest of that sentence if a bunch more AA guns were added or they replaced all the old guns. Might be worth adding to the infobox?
  • There's one World War II in the lead vs. the rest as Second World War; stay consistent (and I would double check that its not supposed to be World War II everywhere).
  • Further down, ...Furious sailed unescorted for Halifax carrying £18,000,000 in gold bullion. I wondered why the gold was moved (was it one of the occupied countries gold reserves, for instance)?Kirk (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to respond to these comments this weekend. Life's been kinda hectic these last two weeks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem Sturm; overall it looks good. Kirk (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I tried in vain to find out what was going on with the gold shipment, otherwise assuming the citation for that fact was Jenkins, p. 283 that's ok and the rest looks good. Kirk (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Read the article through Fire control and radar...

  • Conversions: "An island with the bridge, flying control station, and funnel were added...". Since "were" refers to the island, shouldn't it be "was" for proper tense? Also, "an island" repeats in this sentence, which is a prose redundancy that should be looked at.
    • Hi Giants, thanks for the comments. I'm starting a collaboration with Sturm on a few articles, I might as well get started. Looking at the image there, I think you're right, all 3 of those seem to be on the island, so I went with: "An island was added on the starboard side with the bridge, flying control station, and funnel, as an island ..." - Dank (push to talk)
  • Description: Don't think multiple draught links are needed here.
    • Done.
  • There's 3000 and 3,000 here; these should be made consistent.
    • Done.
  • Propulsion: "The turbines were arranged in two engine rooms and each of the turbines...". Usage of "the turbines" is redundant. I don't think the second usage is needed at all, as it seems obvious what "each" means.
    • I went with: "Arranged in two engine rooms, each of the turbines drove ..."
  • Armament: "and the effective range was 4,800 yards although the effective range was under 1,000 yards." Quite confusing. How could it have been almost 5,000 yards and under 1,000? Or is one of the terms incorrect?
  • I see "yards" and "yd" here, which I imagine should also be made consistent throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to be a lot of both, Sturm, so I'm not sure which way you want to go. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too many abbr=on in the conversion templates. Removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furious: Five of the seven paragraphs here start with the ship's name. It would be nice if a little more variation was present.
      • Don't think the comma after Captain Troubridge is helpful.
      • Refs 32 and 48 need to have pp. in the cite, not p., since they cover multiple pages. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • All done, thanks kindly. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Provisional support – Overall, this was a good read and I'm satisfied that this meets the FA criteria after the comments above were addressed. After an image review is completed, this can be considered a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Support fully now that an image review has been completed. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query Nice read, interesting topic

  • "Four single QF 2-pounder pom-poms were installed after in 1927". after what in 1927?
    • after -> aft
      • Rephrased as all I know is that they were added by that date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lacked an island to minimise any turbulence over the flight deck" I'd have thought the opposite was the case - in order to minimise turbulence it was built without an island.
    • Used your word order
  • I'm curious as to why 36 planes needed a much larger Air group than 48. Would you mind checking that?
    • I see it ... 468 in the air group for the 36 planes as against 403 for the 48. Sturm? - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Different dates, meaning different aircraft types. Also the carriers rarely had a full load of aircraft until about '41. Forex, Courageous only had 24 aircraft aboard when she was sunk in 1939.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the linkage could be improved. Egypt for example could be piped to the Desert Air Force or its precursor

Otherwise as far as prose and completeness its about there, (though I haven't checked MOS or sources). Nice work. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions/comments from Ling
    • I read a few paragraphs, and saw a relatively large number of compound sentences without a comma between the independent clauses. As far as I know, comma placement there is fairly firm rule. I changed one instance, but refrained from altering others for fear of offending. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You never offend, Ling. Garner's and Chicago support a comma between independent clauses except when the clauses are short and connected in meaning. MOS is silent. I don't generally insist because it's a battle I'll never win ... and maybe I shouldn't win it, since many of these commas are disappearing in even well-copyedited prose. Having said that: your request is perfectly reasonable, and has solid support in style guides. If you want to insert more commas, please feel free, and if any truly offend me, I'll pluck them out. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tks. I didn't mention the short clause thing because it's relatively rare: "Eat more fruit and live longer" etc. I think the boundary is usually three or maybe maybe maybe four words. I'll salt 'n pepper the article with commas some day soonish. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "were ordered withdrawn" – I'm assuming this is OK in BritEng? AmerEng = "were ordered to withdraw". – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "263 Squadron was flown off and their own aircraft attacked targets" ambiguous on two counts. I'm assuming "their own aircraft" = the aircraft officially associated with the vessels.. Is there a specific military term for this sort of unit? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, organic. Changed to use that term, but I'm still not sure that it's entirely clear.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Transverse arresting gear was fitted sometime during the mid-1930s" but then two paragraphs down "In the early 1930s, transverse arresting gear was installed".. why are we jumping around in time? Actually, there seems to be more than one instance of it: "She was given a more extensive refit from January to May 1939" but next paragraph "'Courageous was recommissioned on 21 February 1928" – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure about these. Sturm? Also, great edits Ling, but I'm not sure about "Hunter-killer Groups". - Dank (push to talk) 11:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, they're discussing two different ships. Hunter-killer groups is fine because it's a compound adjective although I've seen it used with and without the hyphen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You had that term, Ling capitalized it ... not sure if it should be capitalized, and if so, "K" should be uppercase. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, no, it shouldn't be capitalized as it's a generic name. I'm not sure that it was ever a formal designation, more like a role.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, the time warp... I missed that it was discussing different ships. Hey... is there a way to make that a bit more salient? Just very generally, several sentence start with the name of the ship in italics, and the names are similar (well, semantically, though not morphologically).. so they tend to blur together... It's not recommended to have such repetitive sentence beginnings anyhow... is there any way to help readers keep track.. like "The difference between Courageous and Furious" or "While Courageous was doing this, Furious was doing that.." or.. something better than those, with the same function.. a bit like Shakespeare did to remind the audience where the play was set: "Something is rotten in Denmark".... I think separate sub- sub- sections for each ship would probably be overkill, though... – Ling.Nut3 (talk)
        • I see your point. I don't have a preference. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The whole article is laid out on a ship-by-ship basis (or the two later conversions vs the first). I suppose that I could distinguish between them by using subheadings in the operational history section if you think that that would help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do whatever you think best (or do nothing at all). I did notice that it takes a while before the reader knows which three ships we're discussing. Would you be averse to somehow listing the names of the ships in the first para of the lede? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not at all. Somebody's already added their names to the second sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support images all free and check ok, with tweaks already made, I support. PumpkinSky talk 22:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great to get support from an expert, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Courageous_class_aircraft_carrier/archive1&oldid=1089817648"