Talk:Malta-class aircraft carrier/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 07:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: There's a part of me that is very tempted to quick fail this, with instructions to have this copyedited for clarity before bringing it back. As it stands, it's well below the mark for what I expected to see when I saw it was your work, and I suspect that section 1.a. is going to be rather long. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work

I think it's best to approach this article's issues in two sections. The first section is the first two paragraphs of "Background and description", and the second section is the rest of "Background and description".

The problem in the first section, the first two paragraphs of "Background and description", is that you're trying to cram way too much information into way too few sentences. As a result, several of your sentences come out muddled and inaccessible. There are also a few missing commas. Normally I add those in as I go, but in cases where the text has to be significantly edited, I hold off on copyediting until the end.

The problem in the second section, the rest of "Background and description", is that it's unclear which model is being spoken about, when. I had assumed, up until the last paragraph, that the one being discussed was "X1", however the last paragraph gave me pause.

First section

• First two sentences of the body text: "In July 1942 the Royal Navy formed..." "It analysed the anticipated situation as of January 1944 and realised that..." - How did we get from 1942 to 1944 like that? I suspect that what you meant is that the committee was formed in 1942 and the meeting that led to the Malta-class didn't happen until two years later, but as it reads now, it looks like an error.

• You've completely misconstrued the writing. The committee "analysed the _anticipated_ situation as of January 1944. Perhaps the last clause of that sentence needs to be broken out separately, but it seems a pretty natural follow on to the earlier bits.

• "That required a well-ventilated, open-hangar design to allow the aircraft to begin the typical 15-minute engine warm-up required before takeoff while still in the hangar to reduce the time required to launch all of the aircraft" - This sentance took me a number of readings to wrap my head around. It seems that the key point is that the open-hangar design would reduce time to launch, so I think it could be reworded as "That required a well-ventilated, open-hangar design, which would reduce the time required to launch all of the aircraft by allowing them to begin the typical 15-minute engine warm-up while still in the hangar". Even that is a bit too dense, I think. Perhaps this would be better as two sentences.

• I like your phrasing better, but I don't think that it needs to be broken into two.

• "and the change in tactics to the use of large single airstrikes rather than the earlier doctrine of more attacks with smaller numbers of aircraft." - the wording here is rather cumbersome. Unlike in the above two pieces, I understood what was being conveyed immediately, but the sentence still doesn't read right.

• Split that out separately and reordered it. How does it read now?

Second section

• Where you begin "The Malta class would have been about the same size as...", I would make it explicit which design these specifications are based off of. Something along the lines of "Had the X1 design received final approval, the Malta class would have been about the same size as...".
• If it is based off of the X1 class, I would change around "The six-inch (152 mm) hangar-deck armour of Design X was reduced to four inches (102 mm) when that design was shortened to the X1 configuration." to a sentence that says the same thing, but places X1 first. For example "The four-inch (102 mm) hangar-deck armour of Design X1 was a reduction from the to six inches (152 mm) of armor called for in the original X configuration."

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references: Needs work

• "Between the hangar spaces and the deck park, the Malta class would have been capable of accommodating between 80^[3][4][7] and 108 aircraft." - If a preponderance of the sources say 80, and only one says 108, I would definitely have a ref right after the 108. I assume that 108 comes from the Hobbs, p. 215 source, as it's the next one to follow it, but there's no reason why it can't be behind 108 and behind the sentence after that.

• Done.

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

• It's a shame that there are no images here. I don't suppose that any of the designs/blueprints are locatable? I would think that if they were, they'd meet criteria 3 of {{PD-BritishGov}}.

• All the ones that I've seen have been redrawn and are thus under copyright.

a. license/tagging correct: N/A

b. relevant/properly captioned: N/A

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer: Section acceptable

a. images that should have alt texts have them: N/A

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review: Well, there we have it. I'm sorry to say it, but the first two paragraphs of "Background and description" are, as far as I'm concerned, virtually unreadable. I'm disappointed, because I fully expected, considering the work that I've seen by you in the past, to have been reviewing a much more polished final product. Please don't take this personally. On the contrary; I'm very selective in what reviews I take on nowadays, and would not have even taken this review on if I didn't believe that you were a top class writer. I think that if you take an hour or two to rework the first two paragraphs of "Background and description", you'll have a GA here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not offended, but I also don't think that the situation is as bad as you think. Perhaps that's just author bias, but see if the changes help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's more that, because you're very, very good at these, I was holding your work to a (possibly unrealistic) high standard. I expected it to be very polished because you're work has that kind of reputation. Anyways, you've addressed my concerns, and I've done some copy editing, so I think this is ready. PROMOTED Sven Manguard Wha? 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)