Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Furious (47)

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.

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

HMS Furious (47)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I've tweaked this article in light of the successful FACs of the two class articles and believe that it now meets the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Images: the licensing for File:HMS Furious-15.jpg is odd; I would say the file is merely in the public domain due to it being a US federal work. Other than that, all fine. (I assume, Sturm, that "HMS Furious/Aircraft Carrier 1917–1948: Part II: 1925–1948" identifies File:Furious1941.jpg as a work of the British government?) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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

• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at HMS Furious (47)#Norwegian Campaign. We made edits to or around "untenable" and "charthouse" in a recent FAC, but I don't remember what the fixes were; please fix that before this one goes to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I just ran across those edits; now fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Continuing.
• "816 Squadron, following 40 minutes behind, was": Per WP:ORDINAL, don't begin a sentence with a numeral. There are a couple of easy fixes here.
• "north east": north-east (in BrEng, on Wikipedia)
• "a single Heinkel He 111 of II./KG 26": Many readers won't recognize that as a unit; give the readers who don't click at least a clue.
• "limited to only 20 knots": limited to 20 knots. The "only" would work if the number were really surprising or dramatic; it isn't, here.
• "all crewmen being killed": killing all crewmen
• "She returned to Scapa Flow once all the Gladiators had been flown off. The ship only carried ...": The ship returned to Scapa Flow once all the Gladiators had been flown off, carrying only ...
• "almost 50 aircraft, spare parts and munitions": almost 50 aircraft with spare parts and munitions.
• "for sugar for rationed Britain": for sugar for Britain. (or, you can say a bit about food-rationing)
• "No noteworthy results were obtained and several aircraft were lost.": Quotes should be attributed in the text. This might be better as a paraphrase rather than a quote. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• "near-missed by two others by a German air raid": Generally, you can only get away with one "by" since that preposition indicates who's performing the action. "near-missed by two others during a German air raid" would work.
• "The ship loaded another batch of 40 Hurricane IIs, plus nine Fulmars from 'X' Flight of 800 Squadron in Liverpool and arrived back in Gibraltar on 18 May.": See the comma problem?
• " Furious returned to the Clyde for her biggest load of aircraft yet, 64 Hurricanes which meant that she only had room ...": Same comma problem. Also, "meant" can almost always be reworded for clarity; "leaving" would be better here.
• "42 Hurricanes had been left": See WP:NUMERAL. "Of the 42 Hurricanes left ..."
• "Nine of Furious's aircraft had taken off when the tenth aircraft crashed into Furious's island while taking off.": When you see repetition (taken off, taking off, Furious's, Furious's), that's a clue that there may be a way to tighten it up without loss of meaning, and there is, here; you could do that with about half as many words. Give it a shot.
• "Furious exchanged 816 Squadron for 818 from Ark Royal before she departed for home." Which one is "she"?
• "Kirkenes, Norway and Petsamo, Finland in", "Seidisfjord, Iceland under": commas
• "re-fuelled": refuelled (in BritEng)
• "One small ship, MV Trotter, was sunk, several oil storage tanks set afire and several wooden jetties were torpedoed.": Spot the nonparallelism.
• "working up": Let's link that at first occurrence.
• "She loaded 32 Spitfires and launched them on 29 August before returning to Gibraltar upon which the ship was assigned to Force H.": "upon which" doesn't work for me.
• "Furious embarked twelve Supermarine Seafire IBs of 801 Squadron, another twelve Seafire IICs of 807 Squadron and nine Albacores ...": You use "12" instead of "twelve" above. I see that you might be following WP:NUMERAL's advice to write them out because "nine" is written out; the problem is that we don't get to "nine" until late in the sentence, so it looks wrong, for a while. Go with "12", and then either "9" or "nine".
• "Furious's Seafires strafed the Vichy French airfield at Tafraoui and destroyed three aircraft on the ground and shot down one Dewoitine D.520 fighter": Okay, this is a little tougher. "X and Y and Z" with no commas doesn't work, more often than not, and adding a comma isn't usually the best way to fix it. If you're counting the fighter that was shot down as a result of the strafing, then I'd go with: Furious's Seafires strafed the Vichy French airfield at Tafraoui, destroying three aircraft on the ground and shooting down one Dewoitine D.520 fighter
• "despite three Albacores shot down and a further pair damaged by the French fighters and another shot down by anti-aircraft fire.": "despite ... another shot down" is too informal. Go with: despite the loss of an Albacore from anti-aircraft fire and the loss of three and damage to two more against the French fighters
• "The carrier had aboard the Seafire IBs of 801 Squadron": The carrier had the Seafire IBs of 801 Squadron aboard
• "make another attempt": made another attempt
• "on 17 July (Operation Mascot)": on 17 July, in Operation Mascot
• "one armour-piercing bomb penetrated Tirpitz's armoured deck, but failed to detonate and another 500-pound (230 kg) bomb did only superficial damage.": Most style guides recommend a comma between independent clauses, but I haven't been inserting them because it's common to leave them out between short independent clauses, even at FAC, and tedious to insert them all. But that comma isn't optional when there's another comma in the vicinity, so let's move the comma: one armour-piercing bomb penetrated Tirpitz's armoured deck but failed to detonate, and another 500-pound (230 kg) bomb did only superficial damage.
• "eleven": Go with either eleven and twelve or 11 and 12. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take several days to show up on that page.) I finished up, and also de-italicized "pom-pom" per Parsec's question below. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I merged the Courageous class aircraft carrier range stats into the article. Kirk (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • In the First World War section, you and I know what "all three ships" refers to, but most won't - this needs clarification.
  • Later in that same paragraph - "The other two ships" - I'm assuming this is still referring to Glorious and Courageous? Use their names to avoid confusion.
  • In the conversion section, the line "was converted to an aircraft carrier" might strike some readers as odd (e.g., wasn't she carrying aircraft during the war?). I'd suggest you make clear the distinction between her wartime configuration and a proper aircraft carrier with a full flight deck.
    • How does it read now?
      • Works for me.
  • Here's a question: did the 3-foot increase in draft submerge the belt armor?
    • No. There was so little of it that it was 23 ft high above the waterline at normal load.
  • Why is "pom pom" italicized in the armament section?
    • Slang
  • Shouldn't the wartime air groups be included in that section?
    • There was a moderate amount of stability in her peacetime air groups, so it was easier to summarize. The wartime air groups changed frequently and it was easier to integrate them into the text. Should I rename that section to peacetime air group or some such? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I wonder if it might make more sense to just merge that section into the pre-war section then. If not, perhaps you could add a note explaining that since the wartime groups changed frequently, they were integrated into service section.
        • I've moved it into the Pre-war service section and broken it up, although I'm not sure how well the text flows. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I think it's fine - Dan might want to talk a look, but it should probably be ok. Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• That's all for now - the article looks to be in pretty good shape, and I look forward to supporting once these issues have been addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: looks quite good overall, I just have a couple of minor points:

• the duplicate link checker reveals a number of potentially-overlinked terms: Admiral, Light cruiser, sister ship, North Sea, Sea trial, Nautical mile, Anti-aircraft warfare, Floatplane, Scapa Flow, 816 Naval Air Squadron, 818 Naval Air Squadron, Blackburn Skua, HMS Argus (I49), Liverpool, Iceland, HMS Victorious (R38);
  • Wow, just about all of these were legitimate over links; this might be my personal record for them.
• unless I've missed it, a number of the details that are presented in the infobox are not discussed in the article. For instance laid up, launched and commissioning dates and the size of the ship's complement. Shouldn't these be discussed/mentioned briefly in the text of the article?
  • Verily; I don't know how I missed adding them.
• in the infobox, in the "Badge" field it appears that there is an out of place full stop: "On a Black Field an eagle’s head White, langued Red. armed Gold". AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• "on his third attempt, in Pup N6452, the rotary engine choked " - this leaves unclear the significance of the rotary engine; were there other engines on the plane that weren't rotary? Or can only rotary engines choke? If neither, I'd be inclined to remove the rotary word.
  • Deleted it, although I have a vague memory that choking was a real problem with rotary engines of the period.
• " possibly indicating some sort of raid" - you could probably safely condense "some sort of raid" to "a raid"
  • Agreed.
• ""cwt" is the abbreviation for hundredweight, 20 cwt referring to the weight of the gun." - it looked odd having the sentence start with a lower case c. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, although you're the first person to catch that even though a number of my FA-class ship articles have used that exact construction without anyone noticing. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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.