Talk:HMS Ivanhoe (D16)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 02:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot) c (Alt text) d (Copyright)

• one dab, which is the hatnote link to other ships named HMS Ivanhoe. This in turn points back here via redirect. As this Ivanhoe was the second ship to carry the name, could you maybe change the redirect into a dab page, listing this one and the other one?

• Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• no ext links to be an issue;
• image lacks alt text (no a requirement, but you might consider it);
• spot checks did not reveal any copyright issues.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• No issues.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• all information in the infobox appears in the prose or has a cite, except the ASDIC. Could you either work in a sentence with a citation, or add a cite to the infobox?

• I found a source for this and added it. Please feel free to make any adjustments you feel necessary. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• If the information exists, please add the name of the captain when the ship sunk. If you don't have it in your sources, that's fine.
• Sorry, I missed this before, but another editor, XavierGreen, has raised this point on the talkpage: "She was part of Whitworth's squadron during the Action off Lofoten. Likely the most important battle she took part in. She along with the other destroyers in the squadron attempted to engage the German battleships present with their main batteries, but were out of range. None the less the destroyer's presence prevented a german tactical victory, because the German commander mistook the gunfire from the destroyers for that of a second non-existant allied capital ship and theirfore withdrew". Are you able to comment on this? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues.

• 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:

No issues.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Generally fine. I made a couple of minor tweaks. Please check that you agree with them, and adjust if you don't. Other than that there are just a couple of very minor points to fix or discuss before this article can be passed for GA. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Done now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)