Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Formidable (67)/archive1


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC).

HMS Formidable (67)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

HMS Formidable was one of the six armoured carriers that the UK began building before World War 2. She had a very active role during the war which included service in the Mediterranean, Home, Far Eastern and Pacific Fleets against the Italians, Germans, Vichy French and Japanese. Despite her armoured flight deck, she was badly damaged by German dive bombers. She was worn out by her wartime service and was scrapped as uneconomical to repair in 1953 after a brief period ferrying troops about shortly after the end of the war. The article passed a thorough MilHist A-class review last month and hopefully doesn't require much additional work to pass the FAC criteria. As always, I'm looking for AmEng spelling in a BritEng article and any jargon that should be explained better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments This is a very comprehensive article - nice work. I have the following comments:
 * "built for the Royal Navy before World War II" - seems a bit confusing given that the next sentence states she was completed in 1940 (replace 'built' with 'ordered' or similar perhaps?)
 * "the ship was unable to engage the Japanese fleet when it attacked British forces in the Indian Ocean raid." - not sure that 'unable' is the right word: the British fleet didn't engage the Japanese due to chance and miscalulations rather an inability to attack (though it's just as well that it didn't given how badly the British aircraft would have been outclassed)
 * Agreed. It would have been a disaster for the Brits if they'd actually encountered the five Japanese carriers.
 * "was determined not to simply modify the previous Ark Royal design up to the full limit allowed by the Second London Naval Treaty" - some context is needed here I think
 * I really don't want to get into this because it's a discussion better saved for the class article, but I've clarified that the Ark Royal design was unarmoured which I hope will suffice. If not, please detail what exactly you think should be explained more thoroughly.
 * More generally, the first para of the 'Background and description' section should be tweaked so that it explicitly states that it's talking about Formidable's design - this is implied, but never stated.
 * Clarified that it's about the class, and not limited to Formidable.
 * "The ship could accommodate up to 54 aircraft rather than the intended 36 after the adoption of "outriggers" on the flight deck" - were these part of the initial design?
 * No, clarified.
 * Do sources state when this change occurred? It would have improved the ship's capabilities quite considerably Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but I've added a note giving the most likely date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The additional crewmen, maintenance personnel" - how many men did these add to her crew?
 * Uncertain, I can't find a figure for Formidable in particular. Illustrious had around 2,000 in 1945, but since they had different AA outfits by then I can't use that figure here.
 * "During the Evacuation of Greece, Formidable provided air cover for Convoy GA-15 on 29 April" - just to clarify, was this her only role in the operation? (lots of the Mediterranean Fleet seems to have operated around Crete to cover the evacuation)
 * It was her primary role, but I expect her aircraft provided air cover as much as they could.
 * "The ship arrived at Colombo, Ceylon, on 24 May " - I don't think that this date can be right given that the Indian Ocean Raid took place in early April; should this be 24 March?
 * Good catch.
 * "Somerville received word " - suggest replacing 'word' (which sounds like a rumour) with 'intelligence' (which is presumably what he received - most likely decoded signals?)
 * Quite likely, but neither McCart nor Rohwer specify. I can try to hunt it down if you think that it's important.
 * The tweaked wording does the job Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "when the Japanese failed to appear" - sounds a bit odd - it implies that the Japanese were expected to stick to whatever schedule the British estimated they'd follow
 * They did expect just that.
 * Yeah, but this wording is the British POV, which isn't needed in this context. I'd suggest tweaking it. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "A Royal Air Force Consolidated Catalina flying boat spotted them" - what's meant by 'them' here?
 * The Japanese are mentioned at the end of the previous sentence.
 * Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * " As in Husky, their role was to protect the invasion fleet from interference by the Italian Navy" - perhaps note that this didn't end up being needed given that the Italian Navy surrendered to the Allies?
 * "She later sailed to Gibraltar, arriving on 21 September to begin a refit that lasted until 1 January 1945" - did the ship receive special modifications for tropical service, and service against the Japanese, at this time as was common for RN ships selected for the British Pacific Fleet?
 * I'd suggest breaking the long 'Pacific operations' section into several sections/sub-sections
 * "The Zero first strafed the flight deck before any of Formidable's guns could open fire and then turned sharply to dive into the forward flight deck despite the ship's hard turn to starboard. The fighter released a bomb shortly before it would have impacted the deck and was destroyed by the bomb's blast. Some of the ship's guns hit the Zero as it turned at an altitude of 700 feet (213.4 m) and set it afire, but they failed to destroy it before it could dive into the ship" - these sentences are a bit overly-complex and confusing (it's not clear whether the fighter struck the ship, or was destroyed by its own bomb beforehand). I'd suggest trying to get this down to a sentence or two (the caption of the photo also says that the ship was struck by the kamikaze)
 * "This was filled by wood and concrete and covered by thin steel plates tack-welded to the deck so that she was able to operate aircraft by 17:00 and steam at a speed of 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph). " - as this sentence is about the repairs, I'd suggest leading off with some explicit wording rather than the unclear 'this'
 * "in concert with the Cockatoo Island Dockyard" - what's meant by this? Was she repaired at Cockatoo Island as well as Garden Island (which would have been unusual given that Cockatoo Island could only really handle cruiser-sized ships and smaller), or did Cockatoo Island repair parts of the ship/contribute workmen?
 * See how it reads now.
 * Looks good, though I've slightly tweaked the wording Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to say more about the condition of the ship when she was inspected after the war? From memory, the combination of the attacks of Crete and Okinawa were found to have inflicted severe damage on her basic structures Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The only specifics that I've been able to find were a mention that her boiler superheaters needed to be retubed (a six-month job) in Friedman.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough review, Nick. See if I'm missed anything or if my corrects don't quite suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Support My above comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (UK Crown Copyright, USGov).
 * Sources and authors provided - OK.
 * While IWM photos are offered under a non-commercial license, their usage as free "Crown Copyright" material is within our guidelines (afaik), all such photos are tagged appropriately - OK.
 * fixed 2 damaged IWM templates on Commons (missing "oid" parameter) - cache needs to be purged, but OK. GermanJoe (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking the images over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * Lede
 * "required repairs' possibly should be "requiring"
 * "the ship was unable to engage the Japanese fleet" Perhaps a hint of "why" should be inserted.
 * I think that perhaps the lede could do with some simplification to avoid these sorts of issues. Refits and the like really aren't appropriate to the lede.
 * "Diego Suarez ... Madagascar" That place is probably worth its own link at some point, especially as there is a likelihood of confusion with Diego Garcia
 * Done.
 * Background
 * " to simply modify the previous Ark Royal design up to the full limit " This is somewhat vague.
 * Simplified.
 * While it is a minor point, some sort of statement we are talking about Formidable in the first pp would be good.
 * " that much weight that high" Perhaps change one that to "so"
 * Good idea.
 * Footnote 1, especially the word "faired", could use increased clarity. I'm not sure you are consistent in your use of the plural in "round-down" both in text and here.
 * Linked the term, although I'm not sure what else to do to improve its clarity. Good catch on round-down.
 * "to support these aircraft " Unless we are talking about the Corsairs, and only the Corsairs, I suspect this could be "the aircraft" or even the whole phrase made "aircraft support facilities". It strikes me this might be a better place to mention the crew's complement.
 * It would be if I had solid number for her later complement.
 * Were the modifications you mention, such as the flattening of the round-downs, made at the time of commissioning or later? This seems unclear.
 * Clarified.
 * Armament
 * "she had exchanged one octuple "pom-pom" mount for a quadruple mount and she had a" the double "she had" s reads oddly
 * Fixed
 * Battle
 * "her air group only numbered 13 Fulmars, 10 Albacores and 4 Swordfish" This is mildly problematical as you have not yet specified whether this took place before or after her expansion of aircraft capacity, thus the "only" could be better supported.
 * Her initial aircraft capacity was 36 aircraft, so I think that the "only" is appropriate.
 * A brief mention of the immediate fate of Vittorio Veneto might be helpful.
 * Done.
 * "for the loss of one Fulmar forced to land aboard the carrier" My impression as a lay reader was "well, that's the general idea, isn't it?
 * Clarified.
 * I would make it clearer that the Belfast repairs were for the stern.
 * Really? The location of the damage is in the prior sentence and should be pretty clear, IMO. Mentioning the stern twice in quick succession would read oddly, I think.
 * Yes, I agree.
 * Indian Ocean
 * I would make it clearer which way she went from Sierra Leone to Ceylon.
 * The end of the previous para says that she was in Belfast so I don't really think that I need to spell it out.
 * You state in the lede that Madagascar was Vichy-occupied. This isn't backed up in the body.
 * Done.
 * The word "interfere" is used three times in fairly close succession.
 * Fixed.
 * Iceland, Norway
 * "Six days later she was in Scapa Flow to begin patrols to Iceland in company with the battleships Howe and Anson and the American carrier Ranger for the next three weeks." I dislike using repeated phrases that rely on a stated point in time. Better to give a date.
 * If the firm date was separated by more text I'd agree that there was the possibility for confusion, but given that the date is given in the previous sentence I don't really think that that's much of an issue.
 * "The ship arrived at Scapa Flow" The last ship referred to was German.
 * Good catch
 * " The loss of their heavy anti-aircraft guns and radar sets" Could you make this clearer? I imagine they were on other ships of the fleet?
 * I'm a little at a loss here because the cruisers and battleships were the most effective AA platforms in the BPF so their detachment did mean a real loss of defensive capabilities. See how it reads now.
 * "The bombardment significantly reduced Japanese aerial activity on 5 May, " Presumably, against the Japanese
 * I don't understand what you mean.
 * " to give her extra time for repairs in Sydney" Extra than what? Was the rest of the BFP scheduled to go there?
 * The entire BPF was scheduled to withdraw for repairs/refits/etc. on either 25 or 29 May.
 * "1.5 inch" Do we need a metric?
 * Nope, converted in the last sentence in the armour section.
 * What does the 67 in the title mean?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a pennant number, linked in the infobox. Thanks for your review and check to see if my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support well done, as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done All fixed. Thanks, Nikki.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * FN6, 8: which Chesneau?
 * FNs19 and 20: publication titles should be italicized, also FN19 should use endash
 * Grubb Street or Grub Street? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments - I made a few copyedits; feel free to change them.
 * Don't like the informal abbreviation of BRF or PoW, especially because the latter is used only three times and can be easily spelled out.
 * This is really more a style thing, but I've spelled out the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Royal Navy's 1936 Naval Programme" -- red link this?
 * "A Royal Air Force Consolidated Catalina flying boat spotted them just three and a half hours ..." -- where?
 * "En route she provided distant cover against a Japanese attack ..." -- what is "distant cover"?
 * Legitimate question, but I'm amused that you're the first to bring it up as it is actually rather jargony. That said, I'm having problems thinking of a way to rephrase the sentence. Done, but see how it reads as I'm not really satisfied with the change in wording.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The commander of 1842 Squadron was killed on the first day of operations while strafing buildings at Nobara airfield." -- what squadron? Am I missing something? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that you may be. The squadron is mentioned earlier, with a link, so I'm not sure what you mean. I think that I've addressed all of your other concerns. Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I missed it. Your other changes look fine. Support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this at the A-class review and my concerns were addressed there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.