Talk:HMS Lyra (1910)

HMS Lyra (1910) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 12, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Lyra (1910)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one, comments to follow in next few days. Zawed (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

although sustaining damage: "although sustained damage"

Well spotted. I have amended the sentence to make it clear.

Design and description

After the coal-burning Beagle class,...: be explicit that the Beagle class precedes the Acorn class (as stated in the lead).

Clarified.

Unlike previous designs,...: presumably destroyer designs?

Made explicit.

which gave a range was 1,540: "which gave a range of 1,540"

Corrected.

Two single QF 12-pounder (3 in (76 mm)) guns: suggest amending the pipelink so that only the 76mm is bracketed, i.e. consistent with how it is presented in the infobox. Ditto for the 3-pounder that is later mentioned but reverse the order of the measurements so that inches is first (for consistency in presentation with the other armaments mentioned).

Good spot. That is now amended.

Suggest amending the characteristics section of the infobox to mention that they are "as built".

Added

Construction and career

The laid down/launch dates recited in the first para are inconsistent with the infobox.

Yes, that is strange. I have corrected them.

the amount of staff needed: suggest replacing staff with personnel. Staff comes across as a term you would use for a business.

Changed.

Other stuff

Use title case for the Colledge & Warlow ref

Done.

Newbolt is listed as a source but unless I missed it, is not actually cited.

I have added the relevant section in the body.

Dupe links: depth charges, Second Destroyer Flotilla

Removed.

Image tags check out

Thank you.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thank you for your excellent review. I believe I have made the changes needed. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing this as GA as I believe that the article meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]