Talk:HMS Nicator (1916)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 20:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim[edit]

High Seas Fleet is a duplicated link
- Removed.
No edit wars
Image licensed ok
Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox[edit]

"The M class were" was?
- Changed.
"with both shell and torpedo and" awkward reading
- Removed.
"the action of the destroyer was crucial to limiting losses to the British battlecruiser fleet." very vague, wording could be tightened to ensure reader understands this means keeping the German ships from closing with the British, or something similar
- Ammended.
Brackets around full load in infobox
- Added.
Draught is completely different between text and infobox
- Clarified.
Beam is different between text and infobox
- Fixed.
Cost can be added to infobox
- Added.

Design and development[edit]

Suggest specifically mentioning the First World War somewhere outside of the lede.
- Added to the first paragraph.
"by the navy" > "by the Royal Navy"
- Amended.
Various instances where "M-Class" doesn't need the hyphen
- Two removed.
Link shaft?
- Linked.
"to give a design speed" is this the "design speed" considering it was expected they would be two knots faster?
- My reading of the sources is that the Admiralty requested 36 knots but the designers could only design for 34 knots. It seems that there not a source for many of the members of the class which gives the actual speed in practice.
"two twin rotating mounts for 21 in (533 mm) torpedoes" missing links
- Added.

Construction and career[edit]

Reads as if the laying down cost £149,730, when I assume this is the cost of the entire construction!
- Clarified.
"Seleucus I Nicato" missing an r
- Fixed.
The information about Seleucus isn't in Walker and Manning, so I have to assume it's in Parkes and Prendergast?
- Added a source.
"Flotilla" necessary capital?
- Removed.
prefix for Champion doesn't seem to be your norm
- Template fixed.
Ref. #8 describes Champion as the "flotilla cruiser" rather than the "flotilla leader", which is Gabriel
- Changed.
"Necator" sp
- Fixed.
"In the melee that followed the destruction of Queen Mary" this is quite vague, and I think a little elaboration as to what was going on her would be useful to understand the destroyer response
- Section expanded.
Derfflinger again with the prefixes?
- Template fixed,
"Another torpedo got stuck in its tube." for certainty, "...and did not fire"?
- Added.
"As Nestor and Nicator turned" turned where?
- Clarified.
"which was stationed"?
- Added.
"The destroyer also" too much "also" in this section
- Removed.
"16 and 17 April 1917" repeated year
- Removed.
"not as successful as they needed" for destroying submarines or protecting allied ships? (or both?)
- Clarified.
Ref. #23 was published in January 1918, meaning that it's likely/possible that Nicator had been with the 2nd Flotilla since some time in 1917?
- It is not clear as the equivalent publications for the previous year do have show exactly when the move occurred. Reworded.
"However, this was.." two "however" sentences in a row here
- Reworded.
"operating with a reserve complement" what does this mean?
- I am not sure. It is the phrasing in the source. Removed.

References[edit]

References check out, AGF with print sources. Individual remarks have been discussed above.

@Simongraham: Hi, that's my initial review finished. Will await responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you for taking the time for this review. I believe that I have made the changes needed. simongraham (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]