Talk:HMS Harpy (1909)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 18:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 11:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figure I ought to pick up one of yours in return. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section:

I'd link and spell out knots, since many readers won't be as familiar with that
- Added.
Built by J. Samuel White on the Isle of Wight and launched in 1909, Harpy was initially commissioned into the First Destroyer Flotilla at Portsmouth. - this suggests all work was done in 1909, but commissioning was not until late the following year. I'd suggest adding "in 1910", "the following year", or similar.
- Added.
As the First World War approached - when? Don't assume readers will know when the war started (same comment applies to the body)
- Added to the lead and body.

Construction and career:

Link yard number
- Linked.
On 3 August, the Third Division, which consisted of Beagle, Bulldog, Grasshopper and Harpy, were at Malta and, while it was initially planned that they reinforce Rear Admiral Ernest Troubridge's squadron patrolling the entrance to the Adriatic, Harpy, along with Grasshopper and Grampus, was instead sent to patrol the southern end of the Straits of Messina on 7 October. - this is a very long sentence and I'd recommend breaking it up. Also, do we know specifically who was doing the planning? I.e., it'd be nice if we could avoid passive voice
- Split up and reworded.
I don't have a copy of Halpern, but I find it odd that he states 142,338 tons monthly - that seems oddly specific to be a recurring figure (I'd have expected it to be rounded to the nearest thousand) - can you double check?
- Rounded.
No decommission or struck dates? Guess I'm lucky with my German and French ships, as I almost always have those.
- Unfortunately these seem to be sparse for the Royal Navy at this time.
  - No doubt a surplus of ships being discarded in the early 1920s.

General comments:

References are high quality and formatted consistently; primary sources are used in a limited way
- But Corbett vol. III needs an OCLC number
  - Added.
Earwig returns 1.0% - not a concern

Very nice work overall, mainly just nitpicks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: Thank you. Please take a look at my edits and tell me if there is anything else you would like to see. simongraham (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now, I'm happy to pass it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]