Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Formidable (67)


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

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

HMS Formidable (67)

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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. I hope that reviewers will look for any surviving examples of AmEnglish and infelicitous prose as I plan to send this to FAC after it passes muster here.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Suppport - prose comments as requested follow!
 * "after the latter had been crippled" could just be "after the latter was crippled"
 * "Axis forces" - worth linking
 * "The Royal Navy's 1936 Naval Programme authorized the construction of two aircraft carriers" - I'd break the sentence at that point; it's quite long otherwise.
 * "the weight of the armour high in the ship " - "the weight of the armour so high in the ship "?
 * "had a usable length of 670 feet (204.2 m) due to prominent "round-downs" at each end to reduce air turbulence and a maximum width of 95 feet " is the maximum width linked to the usable length? If not, I'd put "due to... turbluence" in commas. If it is, I'd go fo "and its maximum width of 95 feet" to make clear.
 * " "round-downs" at each end " - they come up a couple of times, but I'm not 100% sure I'm imagining them correctly. Is there any chance of a footnote?
 * "They were beginning to attack the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto when they were attacked by two German Junkers Ju 88 bombers although they were driven off by the escorting pair of Fulmars" - I'd have gone for a comma after "bombers"
 * "During the Evacuation of Greece Formidable provided air cover from Convoy GA-15 on 29 April." I'd have gone for a comma after Greece
 * "She sailed on 17 February to join " - given its starting the section off, I'd avoid using the pronoun here, and stick with the ship's name
 * "Assigned to Force H for the operation," it's in the title, but not in the text. I'd advise "Assigned to Force H for Operation Torch". It's also worth reminding readers what the operation is; it's been a while since it was mentioned in the lead
 * "By this time her air group" - again, as its beginning a section, I'd name the ship rather than using "her"
 * " The detonation of the bomb killed 2 officers and 6 enlisted men and wounded 55 other crewmen and blew" - several "and"s". I'd go for "The detonation of the bomb killed 2 officers and 6 enlisted men, wounding 55 other crewmen and blowing" Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very prompt review! I think that I've dealt with all of your comments. See if the explanation of a round down suffices and if my splitting the sentence regarding the bomb damage reads well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * A few problems that weren't easy to fix in VE:
 * "She displaced 23,000-long-ton (23,369 t) at standard load "
 * "By the war's end the ship was all six of her original ...": ?
 * "take offs": I'm not positive what the options are in BritEng (on WP, anyway), but I don't think it's two words.
 * "Too far to intercept them before they could attack Ceylon, Force A departed ...": Too far away to intercept?
 * "One of Formidable's spotted": ?
 * "further searches failed to locate them. They failed to locate the First Air Fleet again until 8 April": Does this work? "further searches failed to locate the First Air Fleet again until 8 April"
 * More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that I've fixed all of these; see how they read.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * External links check out (no action req'd).
 * Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
 * Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
 * Captions look fine (no actions req'd).
 * One duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
 * HMS Indomitable (92)
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) (no action req'd)
 * In the lead: "HMS Formidable was an Illustrious-class aircraft carrier built for the Royal Navy during World War II." Is this strictly accurate? From reading the article it was laid down in 1937 and launched in 1939 so the bulk of the construction would seem to have occurred before the war started?
 * Repetitive prose here: "although one Fulmar was also forced to force-land...", perhaps reword?
 * "Formidable arrived at Alexandria on the following day...", consider wording more simply as "...Formidable arrived at Alexandria the following day..."
 * not sure about capitalisation here: " to attack British Forces in the Indian Ocean...", specifically think it should be "British forces" (not really a proper noun here I think).
 * "where she embarked 24 Martlets of 888 and 893 Squadrons, 12 Albacores of 820 Squadron and 6 Seafires of 885 Squadron...", should Seafire be wikilinked?
 * Repetitive: "after it had surrendered to a Supermarine Walrus amphibian after..." (after)
 * "After several weeks of working up, Formidable departed Gibraltar on 14 January to join the British Pacific Fleet"... British Pacific Fleet should be wikilinked here I think (its only linked in the lead).
 * "She arrived in Sydney on 10 March after several...", Sydney should be wikilinked (or at least state that it is in Australia as opposed to Nova Scotia). Perhaps also mention that this was the location of the main BPF base as some readers might not understand why it went there.
 * is there a missing word here: " and then turned sharply to dive into the forward flight..." should it be "flight deck"?
 * "had her hangar refitted to accommodate Allied ex-PoWs...", abbreviation for prisoner of war needs to be introduced before use.
 * Only a few minor prose and MOS issues, otherwise a high quality article for sure. Anotherclown (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All done, although PoWs was spelled out in the lede. Thanks for going through this with a fine-toothed comb.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * "engage the Japanese fleet" seems like an odd piping for the Indian Ocean raid - might be better to shift it right a few words (or maybe even reword it slightly to "...unable to engage the Japanese fleet when it attacked British forces in the Indian Ocean raid.")
 * Link knots on the first use.
 * ""eight twin-gun turrets, four in sponsons on each side of the hull" - where were the other four guns? From the line drawing it looks like each sponson had two turrets. Is that correct?
 * Read this again; turrets is the immediate antecedent of the subordinate clause.
 * Yeah, that's what I'm saying (though I see that "the other four guns" is unclear) - the way it reads now, it sounds like only four of the turrets were in sponsons.
 * Ah, now I understand. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.
 * Do we know the names of the two cruisers that escorted her on the hunt for Admiral Scheer? Rohwer is usually good for that kind of info.
 * "the ship was unsuccessfully attacked by a pair of..." - might be unclear which ship we're talking about now, because we were just talking about trying to torpedo Vittorio Veneto
 * Apparently, it's a bad idea to serve in the bow of a destroyer named Nubian ;)
 * "take up his appointment of Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern Fleet" - this doesn't seem right to me - is the first "of" the correct preposition here? I'd probably say "appointment as C-in-C..."
 * The article jumps from preparing for Olympic to the post-war section - it needs to have at least a sentence noting the Japanese surrender. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a bit about the ceasefire in August, but didn't want to get into extraneous details. Let me know what you think. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine to keep it to a minimum, but I'd rather you use the actual Japanese surrender on 15 August rather than their qualified acceptance of the Potstam declaration on 12 August. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But the BPF left Japanese waters before the formal surrender on 15 August, so I think the qualified acceptance is the more important date for the BPF.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, but they were scheduled to leave anyway after 10 August (which is to say the BPF left because it was scheduled to do so for maintenance/resupply/etc., not because the Japanese offered a ceasefire). The reason they didn't come back for Olympic is because the Japanese surrendered, not just the ceasefire offer (which did not end the war, anyway). Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * True, and I've added that bit. See how it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 