Talk:HMS Medway (1928)

HMS Medway (1928) 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: June 27, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Medway (1928) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

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 II 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

Shipwrecks

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Medway (1928)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chris Troutman (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I reviewed this article to ensure it met GA criteria. I was able to find the Rohwer book but am AGF on the others. The image being used is licensed by the Imperial War Museum, so it's permissable for use. I would recommend that anyone reviewing for A-Class or FA ensure that information about time spent with China Station is added. There are other references from the submariner point of view that mention Medway that can be added. The current version meets the GA criteria, as being sunk was the only action this vessel ever saw. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roskill's books the war at sea

Stephen Roskill's 3 volumes the war at sea which I read 25 years ago (or more) mentions Medway's sinking describing her as "an extremely valuable ship." From memory, only HMS Ark Royal (91)'s loss was similarly described. I assume this referred to her disproportionately effective fighting value rather than cost. JRPG (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out, WP:NOTAFORUM. That said, I haven't read that series of books so I couldn't speak to that. Certainly, submarine tenders have utility. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Chris, I'm familiar with talk page rules though I don't feel I have enough knowledge to edit a submarine related article. I did however think it appropriate to draw attention to the dated but arguably still the main RN WW2 source available in the UK, noting it hasn't been used. I had hoped this would be helpful. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roskill usually doesn't mention ships by name other than battleships and carriers so he's not a source that I normally use for ship articles, especially since I don't have full access. That said, I'd be happy to see somebody throw in a comment how Medway's loss adversely affected the sub campaign in the Med.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]