Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/CVA-01

CVA-01
I have just rewritten quite a bit of this and put it into coherent sections, and was wondering where to go from there, as well as how good it is at the moment. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF
Good article structure. Not enough sources and references. There is also a sentence at the lead section which seems to be very hypothetical. It is unsourced as well. --> Had these ships been built, it is likely they would have been named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Duke of Edinburgh. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's actually in most of the sources. I've added one of them to reference it. I'll add in further references when I can. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick Dowling
I'd agree with Fayssal's comment about the structure being good - the article is off to a good start. In terms of content, I think that the article should take a more critical approach to the carriers. For example, the reasons why the RN wanted such large carriers need to be fleshed out - eg, why did the RN think that large fleet carriers represented the best use of its resources after Britain had lost its empire and was mainly focused on NATO commitments? Was there dissent within the RN over the plans to build these ships? In particular, the discussion of the project's cancellation seems simplistic - was this really just cost cutting (eg, did the Labour government perhaps also not think that Britain needed large carriers? - the ships were cancelled only a few years before the Government decided to withdraw from East of Suez) and did it prove to be a good or a bad decision? (there's lots of material on the performance of the Invincible class during the Falklands war you could draw on here) You note in the article that the Treasury estimated that the RN had grossly underestimated the cost of the ships - this suggests to me that the project might have had serious problems - what were they? As a more general note, the article needs lots of inline citations given that its dealing with a 'paper' ship. However, that all said, this is already a pretty good article and there should be more than enough references available to improve it to an excellent article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done quite a bit of that. Still need to add those citations. Some may take a while, as they are National Archives bits and bobs. I fear that the structure has been made worse though... --J.StuartClarke (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)