Talk:HMS Vindictive (1918)/GA1

GA Review
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:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 6) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 7) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 8) *** HMS Vindictive was a warship built during World War I for the Royal Navy (RN).
 * 9) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 10) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 11) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 12) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 13) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 14) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 15) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 16) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 17) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 18) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 19) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 20) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 21) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 22) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 23) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): ✅
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

✅


 * 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)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅

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


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: Yes
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅

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


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (PD)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

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)