Talk:E and F-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 no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• 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):

  • Per Talk:G and H-class destroyer/GA1 pls check the hyphenation for class names throughout (like I said there I'm uncertain of what is actually req'd so if you are happy with the hyphenation usage here then let me know and that's good enough for me).
  • "...Following the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the entire flotilla was sent ..." wikilink Italian invasion of Abyssinia here (links should be separate from those in the lead).
  • "When the war began on 3 September, the E-class ships, except for the two minelayers, Esk and Express, were assigned to the Western Approaches Command (WAC)..." wikilink Western Approaches Command.
  • "...while they were searching for German commerce raiders..." perhaps wikilink "commerce raiders" here.
  • "...returning from Murmansk to Iceland..." perhaps link Murmansk and Iceland
  • 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. Only one minor point:
    • "The E class were ordered as part of the 1931 Naval Construction Programme..." ordered by whom is probably needed here for context. (Royal Navy would probably be sufficient I presume). Consider something like: "The E class were ordered for the Royal Navy as part of the 1931 Naval Construction Programme..." or something like that.
      • This strikes me as redundant to the first sentence of the lede which tells the reader that they were RN ships, but I don't really feel that strongly about it.
        • Per my response at the G and H Class review, no I don't think so but its minor. Anotherclown (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • 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 all appear to be PD and have the appropriate information.
  • Captions are mostly fine, one minor point:
    • File:HMS Foxhound forward guns IWM A 18772.jpg - caption is "Foxhound's forward guns, early in the war". According to the IWM the image was taken in August 1943 (which I've now added to the image information on Commons. As such I'm not sure "early in the war" is entirely accurate. Perhaps replace with the date instead?
      • Good idea.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This article is in very good shape and I was only able to fine a few minor issues above (mostly wikilink suggestions and a few minor prose tweaks etc). Pls let me know if there are any points you disagree with and we can discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing this long article. I only have one issue about your comments above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)