# Talk:HMS Vindictive (1918)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Vindictive (1918)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 23:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

2: Verifiable with no original research

a. Has an appropriate reference section:  Yes
b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other FAs)

c. No original research:   Done

3: Broad in its coverage

4: Neutral

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:  Yes
6: Images  Done (PD)

I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article: 

I think the sentence "Originally designed as a Hawkins-class heavy cruiser and laid down under the name Cavendish, she was converted into an aircraft carrier while still building." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
I think that this one is fine.
I think the sentence "At the beginning of World War II she was converted into a repair ship although her first role after the conversion was completed in early 1940 was to transport troops during the Norwegian Campaign." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
I can agree with you on this one.
I think the sentence "Experiments conducted earlier aboard the larger Furious with a similarly intact superstructure and funnels had demonstrated that the turbulence from these was enough make successful landings almost impossible at high speed, but Wakefield minimised the problem by approaching the landing deck at an angle with the ship slowly moving." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
Repunctuated and split.
"Stuck hard in the tideless Baltic, all of her fuel was dumped over board, and most of her ammunition as well as some 2,200 long tons (2,200 t) of stores were off-loaded, but the ship could not be towed clear by the combined efforts of the light cruisers Danae and Cleopatra and three tugboats." (It’s not clear to me. I’d recommend a bit tweaking for the nonspecialist reader.)
See how it reads now.
"Eight days after grounding a fortuitous westerly wind began on that raised the water level by 8 inches (203 mm), just enough to pull the ship free." (I think there should be a comma after grounding. "began on"?)
Oops.
"Accurate anti-aircraft fire kept the aircraft too high for an effective attack, but Donald's men claimed two hits on the submarine tender Pamiat Azova." ("anti-aircraft fire"? Can it be more clear or you think it’s ok?)
Linked.
I think the sentence "They shot down a helium-filled observation balloon, spotted for ships conducted shore bombardments and, most importantly, nine of them attacked Kronstadt during the night of 17/18 August 1919 to provide a diversion for an attack by the CMBs on ships in Kronstadt harbour. " can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
Done.
"In subsequent attacks on Kronstadt, they near missed Andrei Pervozvanny while she was in drydock, near missed a minesweeper, killing one crewman, and hit two auxiliary ships." (Is the term "near missed" fine or should it be "nearly missed"?)
This is one of those terms where English is illogical. There's nothing near about a "near miss"; it did missed its target, pure and simple. What it did do was nearly hit its target, but that's not how the term is structured for some weird reason. But I've changed them into "nearly hit"
"Furious and Vindictive had proven that the idea of "cruiser-carriers" was unworkable due to the turbulence from their superstructures and that a complete flight deck was necessary to successfully operate aircraft at sea." (Should it be "aircrafts"? or does it refer to the Vindictive? Not clear.)
Aircraft is both singular and plural. Yet another confusing aspect of English.
I think the sentence "The Admiralty had considered converting her to that configuration with an island in July 1918 while still building, but had decided to wait on the results of tests conducted with Argus evaluating different designs for the island." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
No, this sentence can't be split.
"For the next several years she was either in reserve or being used as a troop transport until she began reconversion back into a cruiser at Chatham Dockyard on 1 March 1923." (Too much of personification I guess. I’d prefer "she was reconverted")
Changed one "she" to "the ship". Can't use your phrasing because it was the start of a lengthy process.
"The flight decks were removed and she was generally restored to her designed configuration although her 3-inch AA guns were replaced by three QF 4 inch Mk V AA guns." (generally or mostly?)
Mostly is better.
"She recommissioned on 7 September 1937." (Is "was" missing here?)
Yes.
I think the sentence "She had a low priority so little work had been done by early October when a less complex modernization was considered with six 6-inch guns and three 4-inch AA guns, her former aft boiler room converted from a laundry into an oil tank to extend her range, but this was rejected in favour of a conversion into a fleet repair ship." can be broken into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.
Agreed. Thanks for reviewing my article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Sturmvogel 66, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best,  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sturmvogel 66, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. Promoting the article to GA status.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)