The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 07:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Courageous class aircraft carrier/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I've incorporated many of the suggestions made on the related articles and I think that it's ready. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—A1, citation presentation quality:

  General Sub-edit: Friedman, Norman (1988). Extraneous full-stop in title. Nailer, Roger (1990). Is Gardiner perhaps Editor?

  • Friedman fixed; Gardiner is the editor, that's the way the template displays it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Short citations: Jenkins, front endpaper. Could specify p. front endpaper for clarity? "Britain 2-pdr [4 cm/39 (1.575") Mark VIII"]. apparent failure of wiki-markup.

  • Fixed.

  All else good. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Technical stuff
  • No dab links or broken external links.
  • Alt text missing from infobox image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I did some copyediting and spotted no glaring errors. Image concerns: I can't find the lead image here, so I can't ensure that it is from the USN. File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg has the same problem, except I can't find it on their site period. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NHHC website does not have a good selection of the Navy's photographs available. But if it's got a NH# I'm fully prepared to believe that it was scanned from a book.

• Comments - from the top, section by section:
  • Infobox and Lead
    • The Infobox puts their service careers as 1921-1945, yet the subpage for Furious has her being commissioned a full four years earlier, at which point she was considered a hybrid aircraft-carrier/cruiser (she's properly considered the first aircraft carrier ever built).
      • I don't think it's necessary to split out Furious from her sisters in that regard. Infobox is intended for a quick summary. Whether she's the first aircraft carrier built is certainly disputable and largely depends on your definition of an aircraft carrier. Many seaplane carriers were in service before she was, some with flight decks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox also says that they carried 48 aircraft. Do we know what the breakdown of their standard air-group was, or was it constantly shifting?
      • That's discussed in the air group section.
    • Somewhere in the lead, I'd link Courageous class battlecruiser.
      • Done.
    • Mention in the lead what year Furious started her reconstruction
      • Done.
    • Third paragraph, mention and link that it was U-29 that sank Courageous
      • That information is too detailed for the lede; it's presented in the paragraph about her (brief) service in WW2.
        • You never know. When I wrote Yamato class battleship, I mentioned that Archerfish sank Shinano in the third para of the lead. You don't have to go into all the gory details, but I'd mention that it was U-29. Your call though...
    • Same thing with Glorious, mention that it was Schanhorst and Gneisenau that sank her.
      • See above.
  • Careers as battlecruisers
    • Mention what year the Washington Naval Treaty was signed (we know it's 1922, but it's good to repeat those things outside the lead for context's sake)
  • Conversions
    • The second paragraph of Furious's conversion mentions that the arresting gear weren't used for slowing down aircraft, and then the third paragraph says that no arresting gear were fitted. My guess is it's just a terminology confusion problem, but either way it's confusing the hell out of me.
      • Clarified.
  • Description
    • The ships had a complete double bottom.[11][12] is one of the shortest sentences I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Could it somehow be combined in the previous sentence just so it's not so abrupt?
      • What, you didn't like being wrenched out of the flow? <grin> fixed.
  • Armament
    • What are "PI Mounts", as mentioned in the first paragraph of the Armament Section on Furious?
      • Pivot Mark I*, but I'll just delete their type; it's simpler.
    • I'd suggest keeping number/letter measurements consistent. You put on as "5.5-inch guns" and the other as "four-inch guns". While either one's ok, it's good to be consistent with them.
      • Indeed.
    • In the sentence They fired a 4-inch (100 mm) 31-pound (14 kg) high explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,387 ft/s (728 m/s) at a rate of ten to fifteen rounds per minute., saying "they fired a 4-inch" is redundant. It's the 4-inch guns we're talking about; if they were firing something other than 4-inch projectiles I'd be worried.
    • Same thing with The Mark VIII gun fired a 4.7-inch (119 mm) 50-pound (23 kg) high explosive (HE) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,457 ft/s (749 m/s) at a rate of eight to twelve rounds per minute., we know the diameter of the shells they're firing; it's implied by the gun diameter.
      • I was trying to work in a conversion somewhere in the text.
  • Fire control
    • No issues here.
  • Protection
    • Again, no issues.
  • Air Groups
    • You keep talking about "two groups of fighters, etc", without mentioning how large a group actually was in terms of the actual number of planes.
      • Groups, no. Flights and Squadrons, yes. The sizes of these units varied tremendously so I didn't want to try for any sort of precision. Best I can suggest is to divide the capacity by the number of units, which will get you an average size.
        • Fair enough. The American and Japanese carriers have the same problem.
  • Pre-war Service
    • Do we have a slightly more specific date on when transverse arresting gear was fitted on Furious than "the mid-1930's"
      • Oddly enough, no.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War II Service
    • No issues. This section is very comprehensive and superbly well-written. Well done!
      • Thank you, kind sir.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix these issues and I'll be happy to support. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all my issues above have been addressed. A thoroughly-comprehensive article; sets the standard for carrier articles. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: just be careful of mixing US and British English variations. I found a couple during a quick read. For example, US spelling "self-defense" in the Description section; "organized" in the Second World War section. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed those; please point out any others. My eyes tend to gloss right over them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's all I could find. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

• Lead, "She was given...no superstructure (also known as an "island") to create air turbulence". This could be read as she was given no superstructure in order to create air turbulence, although I'm fairly sure you mean the exact opposite. Reword?
  • Done.
• Air groups, "and had more room to mix things up.". Colloquial/unencyclopedic language.
  • Fixed.
• Pre-war service, "in September 1938 she embarked 801, 821 and 822 Squadrons". This just doesn't sound grammatical - is it ship jargon?
  • Not jargon per se, but how British aircraft squadrons are typically named. No ordinal or article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Second World War: Furious - "departed on 15 April, flying reconnaissance missions". She didn't fly reconnaissance missions, the planes aboard her did.
  • This is one of those anthropomorphic issue regarding ships that I seem to be more comfortable with than most people. Fixed.
• Same section, "Following her last ferry mission she was sent to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to refit." Why was a British ship sent to the US for a refit?
  • Unknown, but likely because the repair yards in the UK were full.
• Same section, "spent the next three months working up." Doing what?
  • Umm, training? Unspecified in my sources.
    • Sorry, I should have been more specific. What does "working up" mean? It's not a term I have heard before.
      • Ah, I've linked it to a new definition in the glossary of nautical terms.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Same section, "Tirpitz was hit 14 times so that she was under repair for". "So that she was"? Is there any way to reword that?
  • Done.
• Same section, "although four aircraft were lost." Whose?
  • Fixed
    • This still doesn't say whose aircraft they were. The current sentence could be read either as "they were attacked and lost four aircraft" or "they attacked and lost four aircraft". See?
      • Offhand I'm not sure if the aircraft were lost to German fighters or flak. I'd figured that since the only aircraft mentioned earlier in the para were British that it was implicit that the aircraft lost were also British.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Same section, "Three operations...had to be abandoned or diverted to other targets in May,". Why?
  • • Combination of weather and alerted German defences.
• As far as I can tell, the Chesneau ref is not used in the notes, but is listed in the references.
  • Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it looks good, but needs a few tweaks before I can support. Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a couple of things I would like to see tweaked, but they are minor, so changing to support. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.