Talk:Alsedo-class destroyer

Suggestions

G'day QatarStarsLeague, just a few suggestions for this article before a possible GAN review. Not sure how many ship class articles you've done before, but these suggestions are based on my own work and work by other Milhist specialist ship editors that I've reviewed in the past. Perhaps take a look at Centurion-class battleship for some pointers re: inclusions in the body? The lead needs expansion, perhaps add her displacement and main armament for a start, and the support for the cross-Atlantic flight. Everything in the infobox should be in the body of the article and cited there, as I looked for displacement, length, beam, draught etc and saw it only in the infobox. Also, it needs more wikification, link things like steam turbine, Yarrow boiler, knots, gun models, TTs, anti-aircraft warfare, Keel laying, Ceremonial ship launching, ship commissioning etc. I was left wondering what the Spanish ships did during WWII (I know they weren't a combatant, but were they patrolling Spanish waters to keep them neutral etc). Anyway, I'll watchlist it and am happy to take a look once you've made a few changes. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the nominator, but I have expanded the body to make sure everything in the infobox is covered and cited in the body, and added a little bit I found about 2 of the ships being damaged in a fire during WW2. I hope this doesn't tread on too many toes.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alsedo-class destroyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll start this in the next couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

made a few minor grammatical tweaks, added a template. Also, the Franco journey sentences are confusing. Make sure I reworked them the way they should be....? auntieruth (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Cape Verde-Fernando de Noronha sentences work just fine. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: