| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
Background Y
Construction
- suggest During her service life, she was sent to or held in port on several occasions due to her unreliable engine. After her engine failed for the third time in late 1941, she underwent major repairs during the first half of 1942 to fix the problem.
Wartime career
- suggest After commissioning, Baddeck was sent to Halifax on 29 May 1941. The current sentence is incomplete, I may not have the intent right, so modify as necessary.
- suggest In June 1941, the ship was tasked...
- I believe the Lady Rodney was a RMS, not a SS, and it would useful to add that she was a troopship at that time.
- suggest In September 1941, she managed to escort the SS Lady Rodney from Halifax to Jamaica despite again experiencing engine failure.
- This doesn't make any sense After her repairs were completed she joined Newfoundland as an ocean escort perhaps She was sent to Newfoundland to serve...?
- The August 1943 sentence is chronologically out of place
- suggest In late 1941 her engines again proved unreliable, and until mid-December she was kept at Hvalfjord, Iceland for repairs.
- what did she do between December 1941 and June 1942?
- Some brief explanation of what the WLEF was is needed, a casual reader might think it was on the other side of the Atlantic
- need to explain that Londonderry is in Northern Ireland, there are many Canadian ports with the same name as British ones
- UK should be in full
- Some brief explanation of what the Western Approaches Command was is needed
- suggest breaking the Western Approaches sentence in two, the first about that, the second about D-Day
- suggest replacing beat off with repulsed
- link Nore Command and briefly explain its role
Post-war career
- Paid off on 4 July
- do we know what flag she was sailing under as Efthania and Yusuf Z. Alireza?
Badge
- Assuming this section can be reliably sourced, link the cadets (same link as in lead)
Commanders
- Abbreviations of ranks should not be used unless previously provided in full. Same for RCNR and RCNVR
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
- the lead needs some more detail of the ship's wartime service and post-war civilian service in order to properly conform with WP:LEAD as a summary of the article.
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
- the general characteristics in the infobox are not supported by the text, which should always be the case.
- The Badge section is uncited.
- The list of commanders is uncited.
- the books in the references section should all have numerical identifiers, usually an isbn, or oclc.
|
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
- the link to fn 1 is dead, needs fixing.
- fn 2 is to a website of Ian M. King. I don't know Mr King's bona fides as an academic, and although he does list his sources, there is no footnoting. I doubt his website is a WP:RS
- fn 3 & 15 are from what appear to be enthusiast/collectors websites. Neither appears to meet WP:RS, and they can be easily dispensed with, as the material is covered by the other citations.
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
- the article doesn't have a Design and description section, which could be largely "borrowed" from the relevant section of the Flower-class article, although it isn't well cited. This is a necessary part of every ship article.
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
- the links to the first two image files are broken, so it is not possible to verify the licensing, this also applies to File:SS Efthania.jpg
- The Memory Project images of the crew don't say anything about the image licensing, but given they are from a veteran story, they may not have ever been crown copyright. If not crown copyright, they would be ok, as taken before 1949
- the ship's crest pic seems to be a pic of an actual crest badge, usually these things are subject to copyright and require official permission for reproduction. The rights certainly wouldn't be with the photographer.
- I would move the pics into chronological order, the 1943 crew pic on the right under the infobox, then the 1944 ship pic on the left where the 1943 crew pic is now. Also suggest putting the SS Efthania pic on the right, it mucks up the flow where it is.
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
but the second crew shot doesn't really add anything, and the first shot is clearly part of the crew rather than the whole crew
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
Placing review on hold for seven days for review comments to be addressed. A significant amount of effort will be needed to bring this article to GA standard in that time. The nominator has withdrawn the article from GAN. It would have been failed today without the above issues being addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
