Talk:HMS Dorsetshire (40)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 01:41, 28 June 2014 (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 minor error with reference consolidation:
- Grove, p. 33 (Multiple references contain the same content)
  - Consolidated, good catch
Disambiguations: one dab link [3]:
- Pacific Theatre
  - Fixed.
Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd)
Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
Duplicate links: a few repeat links to be removed:
- aircraft carrier
- Cornwall
  - Both removed

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
- Whilst not wrong, I think the prose here could be tightened: "Dorsetshire was at maximum 193.67 metres (635.4 ft) long overall, and she had a beam of 20.12 m (66.0 ft) and had a draught of 6.37 m (20.9 ft)." Consider instead something like: "Dorsetshire was at maximum 193.67 metres (635.4 ft) long overall, and had a beam of 20.12 m (66.0 ft) and a draught of 6.37 m (20.9 ft)."
  - Sounds fine to me
- Repetitive language here: "...After completing fitting-out work, she was completed..." (completed twice)
  - Good point - see how it reads now.
- This seems a little abrupt: "...was in transit on 17 December when the Germans scuttled Admiral Graf Spee..." Why did they scuttle? I think if you move the ref to the Battle of the River Plate to the end of this sentence it might add context and help improve the first sentence of the next para which is a little problematic. As such I suggest here: "...was in transit on 17 December when the Germans scuttled Admiral Graf Spee following the Battle of the River Plate."
  - That's a good point - it did occur to me that it was somewhat abrupt, but for some reason it didn't dawn on me to put in a little more context :)
- Suggest changing the first sentence in the next para to something like this: "Exeter had been badly damaged during the battle by Admiral Graf Spee, and Dorsetshire escorted her back to Britain in January 1940, before returning to South American waters to search for German supply ships..."
  - Sounds good.
- Simonstown should be wikilinked at first use, you wikilink it a bit later on.
  - Fixed
- Likewise for Sierra Leone
  - Ditto
- "...under the command of Augustus Agar..." do we know his rank? If so it should be included at first use per WP:SURNAME.
  - The sources I have seen so far haven't clearly indicated his rank (whether he was just Dorsetshire's captain, or an actual Captain - he ended up as a Commodore by the end of the war, but I doubt he was already that rank by 1942, and his wiki article isn't helpful with his rank at any given time).
    - No worries - if its not available that's fine. Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
- No issues with OR that I could see.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- No issues I could see.

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 seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
  - Only one minor issue I could see: File:4inch-gun-MkVHMSDorsetshire.jpg lacks a date in the file template. Is this available?
- Captions seem ok.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
- Generally looks very good to me, just a couple of minor points above to deal with / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those changes look fine to me. Any luck with a date for the image (pls see above)? Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I forgot to mention that. I can't find a specific date (or even year) - I suppose the best I can do is add a generic "c. 1937-1942" to it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes that sounds good to me - I've made that change. Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]