Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Furious (47)/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 GrahamColm 18:13, 20 September 2012.

HMS Furious (47)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Furious was built as a modified Courageous-class battlecruiser by the Royal Navy during World War I, but was modified while still under construction with a flight deck that replaced her forward gun turret. She served as an aircraft carrier during the war, but was laid up afterwards and would have been scrapped in accordance with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 if she had been rebuilt to a much better design as flush-decked aircraft carrier. She was one of two prewar aircraft carriers to survive World War II, but was obsolete by the end of the war and scrapped a few years afterward. This article went through a MilHist A-class review last month and I trust that it meets the FAC criteria. I expect, though, that there will still be minor issues that need to be addressed and I look forward to working with the reviewers to fix those so that it meets the standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Check alphabetization of References ✅
 * How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
 * Ordered by title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Haarr or Haar? - Haarr see here ✅
 * FN75: which Burt?
 * Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether you include "UK" for Kent ✅
 * Be consistent in whether you spell out edition numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * To save design time the installation used in the light cruiser Champion, the first cruiser in the RN with geared turbines, was simply repeated. - Repeated doesn't seem like the right word; they took the Champion's basic design but installed at least 2x the turbines, boilers and shafts. Maybe you can just describe the difference? ✅
 * The complement figures in both infoboxes lack citations or prose mentions.
 * Good catch, added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The speed figure in the infobox for CV version (30 kt) is uncited; the prose indicates the trial speed after the full conversion was 28.8 kt.
 * Look again, she reached 30.03 knots during the post-conversion sea trials. 3rd para in the overview section. After being retubed and given a machinery refit in 1932 she reached 28.8 knots.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the ship had a 'retractable charthouse' at the forward end of the flight deck and the wiki link here is probably not helpful - I doubt they kept the charts on a retractable platform! What about 'flying bridge'? Its seems pretty unique so maybe a description is probably preferable to a link. Kirk (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the navy called it a charthouse. A charthouse was not a platform, it was the place from which the ship was conned and would have been at least partially enclosed.  Normally, ships are conned from the bridge, whereas in smaller vessels there is often smaller structure called the charthouse.  In this case, because of its relatively small size, the word for the smaller vessels has been applied.  A flying bridge implies a structure high up, in an elevate position well above the main deck, not appropriate here. The usage of naval terminology can be tortuous and arcane, this is a typical example. -  Nick Thorne  talk  22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What I meant was the wikilink's definition doesn't match this type of navigation platform. It was kind of a flying bridge - a google search revealed it was not a 'house', just a open air platform raised up above the flight deck and probably was only used when there were no aircraft taking off/landing; that's what I was getting at with a description instead of a link. Kirk (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Chesneau's book has a photograph of the the structure, it was quite large and was on the centreline. I think we should stick with the references regarding what to call this, but I have modified the section to expand a little in the navigating facilities.  Re-reading the reference it is not clear that the structure was used for conning the ship, it may well have been used as a place to use charts as the usual definition implies.  In the photograph it is quite clear that this was not simply an open platform. -  Nick Thorne  talk  05:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I improved the misleading wikilink and added a photo showing the charthouse later in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the picture! Note: the glossary definition doesn't match the OED now, but that's what multiple books about British CVs call these retractable navigation platforms on the center line (along with 'wheelhouse'). Kirk (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Thanks for the quick fixes; nice work. Kirk (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I reviewed this article at MILHIST ACR, and my concerns then were addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Images: I think I had a look at ACR but can confirm they're all fine now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.