Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Illustrious (87)/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) 00:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

HMS Illustrious (87)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious was the first British armoured carrier and served throughout WWII. Her aircraft sank one Italian battleship and damaged two others at Taranto in 1940 before she was badly damaged by German dive bombers in early 1941. She saw service against the Vichy French and Japanese later in the war before the accumulated effects of battle damage forced her to return home in mid-1945. After the war she served as the Home Fleet's trials and training carrier for most of her subsequent career before being scrapped in 1956. As always I'm interested in cleaning up my prose, catching any lingering AmEnglish spellings and any unexplained jargon. The article passed a MilHist A-class review back in December and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I reviewed this for prose at A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support your very well-done article. I can hardly find anything to mention, but I did find these points:


 * Subsequent operations in the Mediterranean: "Illustrious was not struck during these attacks but was near-missed several times and the resulting shock waves from their detonations, dislodged enough hull plating to cause an immediate 5-degree list, crack the cast-iron foundations of her port turbine, and damage other machinery." It seems to switch between tenses and is a bit confusing to me.
 * You're right about the tenses.
 * In the Indian Ocean: "...between India and the UK and the British were worried that French would accede to occupation of the island..." This seems like it should be "the French" or "France."
 * Indeed.
 * Also, as a minor critique, I noticed that there is some inconsistency regarding numbers. For example, I found both "8" and "eight" used at various points in the article (besides names, dates and quotes).

That's all for me. Besides those points, I couldn't really find anything to point out.-RHM22 (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The MOS demands the same treatment of numbers when dealing with similar things which can run afoul of the rule to spell out numbers smaller than 10. Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good to me. I'm not familiar with the MOS requirements for nautical things, so I'll take your word on that. Nicely done! This is one of the more informative ship articles I've read on here.-RHM22 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Support I only have a few quibbles.
 * Infobox
 * The list of honours and awards includes three Napoleonic War ones.
 * By the RN's reckoning, battle honours belong to the name of the ship, not any particular ship of that name.
 * Wartime
 * "were probably added as well at this time" "at this time" seems redundant.
 * Given that none of my sources tell when the outriggers were added, this is my best guess, so I'd be more inclined to drop the "as well" here rather than the other phrase. See how it reads now.
 * "Her complement was sharply reduced by her change in role and she retained her aft 4.5-inch guns." The conjunction "and" bothers me for some reason, feeling a "but" or "though" is needed somehow.
 * "Though" could work, but I don't think a "but" would because it's not contradicting anything in the sentence. All in all, I still think I prefer "and" because the clause is referring to something a couple of sentences earlier.
 * Construction
 * "had to be ordered from Vítkovice Mining and Iron Corporation in Czechoslovakia." I'd move this earlier in the paragraph and date it. Just because Czechoslovakia wasn't selling much to the UK beginning in 1939 ...
 * The armour for one of her sisters (Indomitable?) also had to be purchased from the Czechs in early 1939 and they had the devil of a time getting it into Britain without the Germans seizing it, IIRC.
 * "She conducted preliminary flying trials" last vessel mentioned was Poolgarth.
 * Good catch
 * " her Fulmars" last vessel mentioned was Corallo
 * And again.
 * "could accommodate" perhaps "could launch"?
 * Good idea.
 * Subsequent
 * "Norfolk Navy Yard on 12 May for permanent repairs" I would mention that this is in the United States
 * "Rear Admiral Aircraft Carriers, Eastern Fleet, Rear Admiral Denis Boyd" can the double dose of "Rear Admiral" be avoided?
 * It does seem a bit much.
 * Pacific
 * "She arrived on 10 February and her damage was repaired when she entered the Captain Cook Dock in the Garden Island Dockyard the next day ..." it sounds almost like the damage was repaired on 11 February.
 * It does, doesn't it. Fixed. Many thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All shipshape. Looks good.Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Infobox says ship went out of service January 1955; article suggests December 1954 - if the former is correct this could be clarified
 * Infobox says complement is 1229, article says 1299
 * How are you ordering multiple sources by the same author?
 * Solo works precede books with co-authors, otherwise alphabetically by title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FN23: why include date here?
 * Missing bibliographic details for Rohwer
 * FN41: which source is this?
 * Why is Smith down under the navbox?
 * No citations to either Chesneau. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for going through this with a fine-tooth comb.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.