Talk:HMS Courageous (50)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
there are some minor issues that need to be dealt with before this article can pass its GAN. Rather than go through it on criterion, I'm going to go section by section, in a style reminiscent of my larger ACRs. It's easier for me to organize my thoughts that way.
Infobox and Lead[edit]
Infobox needs to have armament specifications in both imperial and metric (inches and cm for gun width).- Added.
They were given shallow draught, supposedly to allow them to operate in the shallow waters of the Baltic, but this also reflected lessons learned thus far during the war. - this is a bizarre sentence. What were those lessons? Is it possible to cut the second part (starting at "but this also") and elaborate on it in the section after that?- That more properly belongs in the class article so I've deleted it here.
Given the length of the article, could the lead possibly be expanded a wee bit?- Going to be hard to do given that the bulk of the article covers the ship's reconstruction, but I've made an attempt to stretch it out. See what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Genesis[edit]
Who was Admiral Fisher (Chief of Staff of RN, First Lord of the Admiralty, etc)?- Added to the lede.
For the sake of the uninformed reader, could you possibly elaborate a bit on what the "Baltic Project" was within the article?- Is this enough?
- Because of her light construction and other faults, causing more than average time in the repair yard, she was nicknamed Outrageous.[1] - what were those "other faults"? Also, the sentence is worded quite awkwardly, though I'm not entirely sure how to fix it.
Same issue with gun specifications as infobox. They need to be in both inches and centimeters.- Policy at my last few FACs was that gun sizes as part of weapon names are not converted, provided that they're linked. Readers can click on the link if they want to know how big the gun was in their measurement of choice.
Water had entered the submerged torpedo room and rivets had sheared in the vertical flange of the angle iron securing the deck armour in place.[8] - there's a lot of navy-jargon in there that's completely greek to me (as well as the average reader). Could it just be reworded to "Water had entered the submerged torpedo room and the irons securing the deck armour in place were sheared" or something along those lines?what exactly is "stiffening" in this context?- Unspecified in my source, but I've reworded it to make it clearer.
The placement of the wartime modifications before the actual service history seems a bit odd. Could the order maybe be rearranged to work those modifications into the service history?- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
World War I[edit]
- On 16 October 1917 the Admiralty received word of German ship movements that possibly indicated some sort of raid. Could this possibly be reworded to "On 16 October 1917 the Admiralty detected German ship movements that suggested the possibility of a raid" or something along those lines? "Possibly indicated some sort of raid" just doesn't sound very encyclopedic.
- Slightly rephrased.
- Is there still an issue with this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Slightly rephrased.
Second Battle of Heligoland Bight[edit]
A preliminary raid on German minesweeping forces on 31 October by light forces destroyed ten small ships and the Admiralty decided on a larger operation to destroy the minesweepers and their escorting light cruisers. - that seems like an awfully long run-on sentence. Comma in the middle somewhere please.- I don't think a comma is necessary because where would it go? The two "and"s in the sentence are conjunctions connecting two large clauses and I don't think that breaking the sentence in half would make it read better. The only possible improvement that I can think that might be useful is to change the first "and" to a "so" to further reinforce the causal effect, but even that seems trivial.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
According to what the author suggests, HMS Courageous did not sustain any damage in the 2nd battle of the Heligoland Bight but `by the muzzle blast of its heavy 15 inches guns`. However, the standard volume in Germany about batlleships and battlecruisers ("Schlachtschiffe und Schlachtkreuzer" by Siegfried Breyer) gives a quite different account on the outcome of this 2nd HB battle. The authors says:`As it was to be expected from the very beginning on, these ships - Glorious, Courageous and Furious - turned out to be very faulty designs. This became evident in the cruiser battle on November 17th 1917 (2nd battle of the Heligoland Bight) where minor 15 cm hits (scored by german light cruisers) let to sensitive damage and destructions on HMS Courageous. Despite her heavy guns and high speed she could hardly withstand an engagement with enemy warships without running the risk of her own destruction, and should these enemy ships be smaller and weaker units (...).`(edited by Agincourt, April 24th 2011 0:14h CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.31.31 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Conversion[edit]
I'm not entirely sure what to do with this sentence: An island with the bridge, flying control station and exhaust funnel was added on the starboard side, despite earlier fears that an island did created as much turbulence as had been earlier feared. It really doesn't flow well, but I'm unsure of how exactly to fix it.- I am, rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent.
- I am, rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
World War II and sinking[edit]
- No issues here
Other[edit]
- All image copyrights check out
Once these issues have been resolved, I'll have no objections to it passing its GA. Spam my talk-page if you have questions. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 04:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)