Talk:HMS Vindictive (1918)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Vindictive (1918)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 23:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done HMS Vindictive was a warship built during World War I for the Royal Navy (RN). Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other FAs)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Cross-checked with other FAs: HMS Lion (1910), HMAS Australia (1911), Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship, Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga, Russian battleship Slava, Courageous class battlecruiser, SMS Goeben, HMS Indefatigable (1909)‎, Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō, USS New Ironsides, HMS Hood (51), HMS Princess Royal (1911), HMS Eagle (1918), HMS Courageous (50), USS Arizona (BB-39), HMS New Zealand (1911), Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi, HMS Queen Mary, HMS Vanguard (23), Courageous class aircraft carrier, HMS Agincourt, HMS Hermes (95), HMS Furious (47)‎, USS Lexington (CV-2), HMS Argus (I49), HMS Tiger (1913), Russian battleship Rostislav, Fusō-class battleship, Japanese battleship Fusō, Japanese battleship Yamashiro, USS Saratoga (CV-3), Conte di Cavour-class battleship, Japanese battleship Musashi, HMS Warrior (1860), Tosa-class battleship, Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū, Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano, Japanese battleship Mutsu, Japanese battleship Asahi, Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō, Russian battleship Retvizan Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Cross-checked with other FAs: HMS Lion (1910), HMAS Australia (1911), Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship, Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga, Russian battleship Slava, Courageous class battlecruiser, SMS Goeben, HMS Indefatigable (1909)‎, Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō, USS New Ironsides, HMS Hood (51), HMS Princess Royal (1911), HMS Eagle (1918), HMS Courageous (50), USS Arizona (BB-39), HMS New Zealand (1911), Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi, HMS Queen Mary, HMS Vanguard (23), Courageous class aircraft carrier, HMS Agincourt, HMS Hermes (95), HMS Furious (47)‎, USS Lexington (CV-2), HMS Argus (I49), HMS Tiger (1913), Russian battleship Rostislav, Fusō-class battleship, Japanese battleship Fusō, Japanese battleship Yamashiro, USS Saratoga (CV-3), Conte di Cavour-class battleship, Japanese battleship Musashi, HMS Warrior (1860), Tosa-class battleship, Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū, Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano, Japanese battleship Mutsu, Japanese battleship Asahi, Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō, Russian battleship Retvizan Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:

• I think the sentence "Originally designed as a Hawkins-class heavy cruiser and laid down under the name Cavendish, she was converted into an aircraft carrier while still building." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
  • I think that this one is fine.
• I think the sentence "At the beginning of World War II she was converted into a repair ship although her first role after the conversion was completed in early 1940 was to transport troops during the Norwegian Campaign." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
  • I can agree with you on this one.
• I think the sentence "Experiments conducted earlier aboard the larger Furious with a similarly intact superstructure and funnels had demonstrated that the turbulence from these was enough make successful landings almost impossible at high speed, but Wakefield minimised the problem by approaching the landing deck at an angle with the ship slowly moving." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
  • Repunctuated and split.
• "Stuck hard in the tideless Baltic, all of her fuel was dumped over board, and most of her ammunition as well as some 2,200 long tons (2,200 t) of stores were off-loaded, but the ship could not be towed clear by the combined efforts of the light cruisers Danae and Cleopatra and three tugboats." (It’s not clear to me. I’d recommend a bit tweaking for the nonspecialist reader.)
  • See how it reads now.
• "Eight days after grounding a fortuitous westerly wind began on that raised the water level by 8 inches (203 mm), just enough to pull the ship free." (I think there should be a comma after grounding. "began on"?)
  • Oops.
• "Accurate anti-aircraft fire kept the aircraft too high for an effective attack, but Donald's men claimed two hits on the submarine tender Pamiat Azova." ("anti-aircraft fire"? Can it be more clear or you think it’s ok?)
  • Linked.
• I think the sentence "They shot down a helium-filled observation balloon, spotted for ships conducted shore bombardments and, most importantly, nine of them attacked Kronstadt during the night of 17/18 August 1919 to provide a diversion for an attack by the CMBs on ships in Kronstadt harbour. " can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
  • Done.
• "In subsequent attacks on Kronstadt, they near missed Andrei Pervozvanny while she was in drydock, near missed a minesweeper, killing one crewman, and hit two auxiliary ships." (Is the term "near missed" fine or should it be "nearly missed"?)
  • This is one of those terms where English is illogical. There's nothing near about a "near miss"; it did missed its target, pure and simple. What it did do was nearly hit its target, but that's not how the term is structured for some weird reason. But I've changed them into "nearly hit"
• "Furious and Vindictive had proven that the idea of "cruiser-carriers" was unworkable due to the turbulence from their superstructures and that a complete flight deck was necessary to successfully operate aircraft at sea." (Should it be "aircrafts"? or does it refer to the Vindictive? Not clear.)
  • Aircraft is both singular and plural. Yet another confusing aspect of English.
• I think the sentence "The Admiralty had considered converting her to that configuration with an island in July 1918 while still building, but had decided to wait on the results of tests conducted with Argus evaluating different designs for the island." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
  • No, this sentence can't be split.
• "For the next several years she was either in reserve or being used as a troop transport until she began reconversion back into a cruiser at Chatham Dockyard on 1 March 1923." (Too much of personification I guess. I’d prefer "she was reconverted")
  • Changed one "she" to "the ship". Can't use your phrasing because it was the start of a lengthy process.
• "The flight decks were removed and she was generally restored to her designed configuration although her 3-inch AA guns were replaced by three QF 4 inch Mk V AA guns." (generally or mostly?)
  • Mostly is better.
• "She recommissioned on 7 September 1937." (Is "was" missing here?)
  • Yes.
• I think the sentence "She had a low priority so little work had been done by early October when a less complex modernization was considered with six 6-inch guns and three 4-inch AA guns, her former aft boiler room converted from a laundry into an oil tank to extend her range, but this was rejected in favour of a conversion into a fleet repair ship." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
  • Agreed. Thanks for reviewing my article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Sturmvogel 66, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sturmvogel 66, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)