Talk:HMS Retriever (1917)

HMS Retriever (1917) 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: December 23, 2020. (Reviewed version).

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

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

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

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Retriever (1917)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this soon. ♦ jaguar 15:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead summarises the article in accordance to WP:LEAD
"The ships differed from the six preceding Thornycroft M-class built by the yard" - where was the yard in question? Southampton? Don't worry about specifying if it isn't possible
"along with four 21 in (533 mm)" - inch
"The following year, the ship was credited with the destruction of the submarine SM UB-54" - perhaps de-link submarine here

In light of its length and well-written prose I'll promote this outright. It meets the GA criteria both on prose and comprehensibility, owing to its short service history. I couldn't find any other issues with the article and enjoyed reading it. The above points are very minor nitpicks, but otherwise this is definitely GA standard. Well done - I'll be on the lookout to reviewing more Royal Navy GANs. ♦ jaguar 14:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]