Talk:G and H-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)[reply]

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 a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
- Lenton, pp. 159–60 Multiple references contain the same content
- l59 Multiple references are using the same name
  - Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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):
- "...The Havants spend most of the war..." → "...The Havants spent most of the war..."
- "...participated in the Battle of Cape Matapan in March 1941 and covering the..." → "...participated in the Battle of Cape Matapan in March 1941 and covered the..."
- "...the G class achieved this with a..." should it be "G-class" here for consistency?
  - Hyphens are only needed for compound adjectives like G-class destroyer where G and class together form an adjective that needs a hyphen. In "G class", the G modifies class and no hyphen is needed since there's no compound adjective at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "... and the J-, K- and N classes..." should it be "N-classes" (it seem inconsistent not hyphenating here that's all).
  - This is a mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "...As per the E and F class..." are hyphens needed here?
- "...They are usually included with the H class..." Hypthen?
- "... Vasilissa Olga, named after Queen Olga, she served..." → "... Vasilissa Olga, named after Queen Olga, served..." (delete "she" I think)
- "...Along with other ships, escaped to Alexandria in May 1941..." → "...Along with other ships, she escaped to Alexandria in May 1941..." (add "she" here though)
- "...Grenville and the G class..." hypthen?
- "...spent the bulk of their time before the start of World War II in August 1939..." This seems a little awkwardly worded including "in August 1939", I wonder if it is almost not needed?
  - I agree.
- "...They sank two German destroyers in exchange for the loss of Hardy and Hunter while Hotspur was badly damaged..." add a comma between "Hunter" and "while" I think.
- "2nd Battle of Narvik..." seems inconsistently presented (consider you use "First Battle of Narvik" so I suggest "Second Battle of Narvik" here)
- "...in September against the Vichy French forces there..." It might pay to wikilink "Vichy French" here as some of our readers might not understand the concept.
- "...Griffin and Hotspur was..." → "...Griffin and Hotspur were..."
- 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. A couple of minor points:
  - "The G class were ordered as part of the 1933 Naval Construction Programme..." ordered by whom is probably needed here for context. (Royal Navy would probably be sufficient I presume). Consider something like: "The G class were ordered for the Royal Navy as part of the 1933 Naval Construction Programme..." or something like that.
    - The lede sentence already tells the reader that they were built for the RN; is this not clear enough?
      - No. What if I didn't read the lead? Regardless, I'll leave it up to you. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Two ships, modified versions of the G class, were built for the Greek Royal Hellenic Navy (RHN) by Yarrow." Adding the dates of their construction might add context here.
    - Good idea.
- 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 are either PD and have the appropriate information or are fair use and appear to have a valid rationale.
- Captions look fine.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
- This article looks good to me, just a few mostly prose points and other minor points to work through / discuss before it can be promoted. As always I am happy to discuss any points that you disagree with (especially the hypthens - I really don't know when they are or are not req'd so I'm just asking you to check so that the article is correct). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done, thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Passing now. I'd still recommend mentioning the Royal Navy in the "Design and description" section but that's just an opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]