Talk:HMS Cardiff (D58)

HMS Cardiff (D58) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 10, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War I / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Cardiff (D58)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one, comments to follow over the weekend. Zawed (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, took me longer than I thought to get to this. That said, there is little to fault here. I made one edit to correct a minor issue, the other other things I picked up are:

wikilink Bolshevik and Second Battle of Heligoland Bight in the body of the article, they are both linked in the lead.
- I honestly don't see any need to link any terms already linked in the lede unless it's a much longer article than this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the article reads well, is fully cited, and provides broad coverage of the subject. It uses neutral language and is stable. There are appropriate tags on the images. No duplicate or dab links, external links check out OK. Zawed (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Hmm, I've only just noticed that very few of the linked terms in the lede are linked in the article body. There I was thinking I had looked at this closely...Anyhow, I am happy to pass as a GA in light of the reasoning you have provided for the linking issue. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]