Talk:Battle of Dover Strait (1916)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. I have made a number of tweaks, but where I am unsure, or wish to make recommendations, I have listed these below. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, "flotilla of British destroyers were sent to repel them" - this seems like a tense issue to me. I think it should be "flotilla of British destroyers was sent to repel them". Flotilla is singular, even though there are multiple destroyers;
a few more links could help readers, for instance terms such as "flotilla", "drifter", "destroyer", "division", "Dover Patrol" have specific meaning which the lay reader might not necessarily fully understand without a link;
"A class torpedo boats", I believe that this should be "A-class torpedo boats" per the way that "Tribal-class destroyers" is presented with the hyphen;
in the Battle section, I suggest wikilinking the word "allied" to Allies of World War I
in the Battle section, "destroyer division, Commander Oliphant of the Viking, failed to keep his squadron" (was it a division or squadron?);
in the Battle section, "but was struck with a torpedo" would probably sound better as "but was struck by a torpedo";
in the Aftermath section, there is some repetition here: "in addition to Flirt and the transport Queen. In addition to those vessels" (the word "addition" is the issue as it is used twice in quick succession, perhaps this could be reworded?);

I believe i have fixed all the issues in this section.XavierGreen (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

No issues for GA, although if this article is going to be taken to A-class or FAC, I suggest trying to expand the reference base a little further if possible. Are there any reliable web links that could be consulted? Any more books that might mention the battle? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the commander of the Dover Patrol" - do we know the name of this officer? If so, it would be good to add it here;

Has this comment been addressed? If the name is not in any of the sources, that is fine, but it needs to be stated before the review can be closed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Seems ok, although I think care needs to be taken when using terms like "enemy". It is only used once at the moment, and probably could just be reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it, its kind of strange i put that in there since most of the relatives i have that fought in the war were on the side i put as the enemy lol.XavierGreen (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:

No war stoppers, however, I think that the dates on the images should be tweaked. Currently they show the date that they were uploaded, but they should actually show the date they were taken. For instance on File:HMSNubian.jpg, I don't think that the date field should say "XavierGreen (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)", rather it should be "October 1916" or something similar. Additionally, in the source field, I suggest adding the author's name, publication year, publisher etc.;
not relevant to this review, however, I suggest tweaking the headings on "File:HMSNubian.jpg". Currently it has duplicate "Summary" and "Licencing" sections. There really only needs to be one of each. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this article looks in reasonable shape to me. There are a couple of things that I think need addressing, though, before promotion to GA, although these are relatively minor. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost done, there is just one point above to be addressed or clarified. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I've passed the article for GA now. Good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]