Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Ark Royal (91)


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HMS Ark Royal (91)
I am renominating this article for A class review after it has been worked on and overhauled by myself, User:Saberwyn and other editors to fit the criteria. The previous review is archived here. Benea (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support good work.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as contributor. I believe that the concerns of the first A-class review have been adressed: namely that a significant copyedit of the prose and formatting was required. In regards to the featured article criteria, the article either meets the points given, or is within easy reach. It should be noted that my opinion may be biased, as I've done a lot of copy-editing on this article. -- saberwyn 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The Commonwealth English throws me a bit but everything looks to be in order and the article has certainly been through the wringer enough to work out the problems. --Brad (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - great work! -MBK004 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I know that uboat.net is acceptable for sourcing, but you might want to have a response for that ready when you take the article to FAC, because I am sure that it will come up. -MBK004 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a very good article, but I'm uncomfortable with the number of rough patches at present.
 * I would strongly suggest a comprehensive copy-edit of the early part of this article. Some of the text in the early sections is vauge or inconsistent and I think that the wording could be improved. The Service history and following sections are excellent, however.
 * "Designed to carry a maximum number of aircraft" - this is vauge - do you mean "designed to carry a large number of aircraft"?
 * That's that basic meaning. Changed.
 * "Her sinking was critically investigated, as the carrier was lost despite significant efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar." - this is a bit awkward and slightly missleading given that RN practice was to investigate the losses of all major ships - perhaps something like "The causes of her loss were investigated, and the ship's captain was found to have acted negligently" would be clearer?
 * I think it would be a mistake to mention the charges brought against Maund here, as I think it would tend to imply that he was in some way responsible for the sinking. Recent investigation has shown that the fate of the ship was probably out of Maund's hands the moment the torpedo struck. Better to leave this for the appropriate section where this is discussed in more detail.  I've altered it to 'Her sinking was the subject of several inquiries, with the investigators keen to know how the carrier was lost, given that there were significant efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar.' Which I think conveys the basic thrust of the various inquiries.
 * "They found" -> "The investigation also found"
 * Changed to 'The inquiries found' (the Board of Inquiry, the Bucknill Committee and the court-martial all analysed the various aspects of the sinking to varying degrees.)
 * If the ship was laid down in September 1935 and launched in April 1937 she didn't spend "two years in the builder's yard before being launched".
 * Changed to 'nearly two years'
 * Notes b, c and d are trivia and should probably be removed. Notes a and e look suitable to be integrated into the body of the article.
 * I'm a bit confused about the para which states that "The carrier was to be deployed to the Far East" but then says that it was decided not to do this on the basis of "recent events" which include two crises which occured before she was commissioned. Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that there was an intention to use her in the Far East when she was ordered, but this changed due to world events while she was under construction? Nick Dowling (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've clarified this. Benea (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.