Talk:G and H-class destroyer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 18:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
  • Lenton, pp. 159–60 Multiple references contain the same content
  • l59 Multiple references are using the same name
    • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no (unnecessary) duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "...The Havants spend most of the war..." → "...The Havants spent most of the war..."
  • "...participated in the Battle of Cape Matapan in March 1941 and covering the..." → "...participated in the Battle of Cape Matapan in March 1941 and covered the..."
  • "...the G class achieved this with a..." should it be "G-class" here for consistency?
    • Hyphens are only needed for compound adjectives like G-class destroyer where G and class together form an adjective that needs a hyphen. In "G class", the G modifies class and no hyphen is needed since there's no compound adjective at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "... and the J-, K- and N classes..." should it be "N-classes" (it seem inconsistent not hyphenating here that's all).
    • This is a mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "...As per the E and F class..." are hyphens needed here?
  • "...They are usually included with the H class..." Hypthen?
  • "... Vasilissa Olga, named after Queen Olga, she served..." → "... Vasilissa Olga, named after Queen Olga, served..." (delete "she" I think)
  • "...Along with other ships, escaped to Alexandria in May 1941..." → "...Along with other ships, she escaped to Alexandria in May 1941..." (add "she" here though)
  • "...Grenville and the G class..." hypthen?
  • "...spent the bulk of their time before the start of World War II in August 1939..." This seems a little awkwardly worded including "in August 1939", I wonder if it is almost not needed?
    • I agree.
  • "...They sank two German destroyers in exchange for the loss of Hardy and Hunter while Hotspur was badly damaged..." add a comma between "Hunter" and "while" I think.
  • "2nd Battle of Narvik..." seems inconsistently presented (consider you use "First Battle of Narvik" so I suggest "Second Battle of Narvik" here)
  • "...in September against the Vichy French forces there..." It might pay to wikilink "Vichy French" here as some of our readers might not understand the concept.
  • "...Griffin and Hotspur was..." → "...Griffin and Hotspur were..."
  • The "External links" section is empty (other than the commons cat box). Per WP:LAYOUT "Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates". As such the commons box should be moved to the top of the "References" section and the "External links" heading deleted unless links are added.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • The article looks well referenced to WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major aspects seem to be covered. A couple of minor points:
    • "The G class were ordered as part of the 1933 Naval Construction Programme..." ordered by whom is probably needed here for context. (Royal Navy would probably be sufficient I presume). Consider something like: "The G class were ordered for the Royal Navy as part of the 1933 Naval Construction Programme..." or something like that.
      • The lede sentence already tells the reader that they were built for the RN; is this not clear enough?
        • No. What if I didn't read the lead? Regardless, I'll leave it up to you. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    • "Two ships, modified versions of the G class, were built for the Greek Royal Hellenic Navy (RHN) by Yarrow." Adding the dates of their construction might add context here.
      • Good idea.
  • Article uses summary style effectively and doesn't seem to go into unnecessary detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • All major viewpoints seem to be covered.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images are either PD and have the appropriate information or are fair use and appear to have a valid rationale.
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This article looks good to me, just a few mostly prose points and other minor points to work through / discuss before it can be promoted. As always I am happy to discuss any points that you disagree with (especially the hypthens - I really don't know when they are or are not req'd so I'm just asking you to check so that the article is correct). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• All done, thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Passing now. I'd still recommend mentioning the Royal Navy in the "Design and description" section but that's just an opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)