Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Ark Royal (91)


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008.

HMS Ark Royal (91)

 * Nominator(s): Benea (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after passing good and A class article reviews, and having been substantially worked on by a number of editors, I now believe this meets the required standards for a Featured Article. Benea (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments A couple things I noticed at first glance.
 * Don't left-align images directly under second-level section headers (===).
 * Be sure non-breaking spaces are used throughout.
 * Ref #5 need publisher info.
 * Ref #23 needs the page number.
 * Otherwise sources look good, and links check out according to the link checker. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to your comments (Benea may wish to add more later)
 * All figures use the convert template, which I am led to believe includes a non-breaking space in the coding. Could you indicate other areas where a 'nbsp' should be but currently isn't?
 * Add a nbsp after all numbers that would look confusing if broken on a different line. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done the ones I can find. -- saberwyn 09:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Other editors appear to have fixed the image placement. Could you direct me to the relevant section of the MOS for my future reference?
 * MOS:IMAGES Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify where publisher information is needed? Do you mean in the text-citation, or in the reference list at the end of the article?
 * The in-line citation if possible. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem I see in doing so is that it weighs down the size of that particular citation in comparison to the others, and I'm trying to keep the WP:CITESHORT style guideline in mind. The only reason I can see to add the publisher to the intext cite would be to aid in identifying the particular source if there was no other way to do so... in this case the author of the website is known, and there are no other works cited in the article that have the same or a similar author or title. -- saberwyn 09:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Working on tracking down a copy of the book. The book does not appear to support any of the information in the article; that reference has been removed. -- saberwyn 05:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * Feel free to reply directly under the particular points, so we don'r get confused. -- saberwyn 07:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it named "91"? Is this a designator, a year, the 91st ship in its class, or what? --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that that number was the Ark Royal ' s pennant number. Most military ships have either that or a hull classification symbol. This includes prior FAs that are military ships. (HMS Royal Oak (08), HMAS Melbourne (R21), USS Wisconsin (BB-64) for some examples) -MBK004 05:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was the pennant number. To lessen confusion, it has been altered to read "HMS Ark Royal (pennant number 91)...". MBK, in regards to bolding, do you think we should bold the number, the whole string, or just leave as is? -- saberwyn 07:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as major contributor. I believe that the article is a good candidate for Featured Article status. The article comprehensively covers the ship's history from concept to sinking and re-locating, with all content reliably sourced and all major facts attributed with a citation. The article is stable, with the only forseeable changes being minor content, formatting, and grammar fixes arising from the FAC process and general editing. It follows the style guides for layout and formatting, with appropriate structure, illustrations, and size. I feel that the quality is at least on-par with other naval history FAs.
 * However, I am most likely biased, as I have been involved in copyediting the article in order to reach this point (Benea is wholly responsible for the excellent content and research, and deserves all the praise. I just made the words pretty :P ), and this will likely influence my judgement. I am open to the idea of improvements to the article, and will happily help implement them. To that end, I will be replying to some of the comments during this discussion. -- saberwyn 07:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sabrewyn is far too modest! I had the easy (for me at least!) job of working the information in, and doing the sourcing. But without Sabrewyn's work this article would have rusted at GA class, as the final finishing touches are all his. Benea (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good for me. Prose seems ok, has been checked numerous times. The images are all free, useful and informative. The references are copious. It seems representative of the available sources. I do wonder about the name though it does fall under the grey area of Naming conventions (ships) where it is young enough to have a pennant, but it is not that distinguishing. Anyway, it seems to have survived until now on its own merits and it is in no-way a dealbreaker for me. Once again, well done, a thoroughly enjoyable read. Woody (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support An excellent article which meets the FA criteria. A lot of work has gone into this article, and it is in great condition. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Having watched the article go through two A class reviews it certainly appears ready for FA. --Brad (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please locate some to clear the images, per WP:WIAFA 3; that could be, , or anyone else who speaks images.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I checked the images and they are all free so no Fair-use issues. They all seem to be in the public domain due to UK copyright laws expiring and the majority being US public domain. I had doubts about Image:HMS Ark Royal.JPG but the deleted edits say {Information| |Description = HMS Ark Royal from the air |Source = From collection of Wiki-Ed's great uncle, possibly taken by someone else and then traded |Date = 1940s |Author = Arthur Conry (digitised and edited by ) |Permission = GFDL } which placates me somewhat, but not completely. It seems a bit dodgy to me, as the copyright status is a bit of hear-say: it could be removed without any issues on the article in my opinion. The IWM links are all correct. So looks good apart from the one image. Woody (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One option might be to remove it and replace it with Image:HMS Ark Royal h85716.jpg, which is currently in the "Armament and Aircraft" section. Its a nice clear image of the ship, moving it out of the section and into the infobox will help avearge out the image density throughout the article, and at some browser window sizes its current position manks with the squadron table. -- saberwyn 00:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I went all BOLD and swapped the images. So, no question marks whatsoever on the images now Sandy. Regards. Woody (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Woody (you have to let me know these things :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oopse. You did already (senior moment).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.