Talk:HMS Mons (1915)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Beginning this by noting that I'm amazed the Admiralty chose to name a ship after Mons...not perhaps what I would have chosen to do![reply]

Indeed. One reason I thought it was a good one to cover! simongraham (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim

Earwig reports no copyvio
No edit wars
Destroyer and High Seas Fleet are duplicated links

Fixed.

Image correctly licensed. A second one placed underneath the infobox would not go amiss

Lede and infobox

"The M class was"?

Done.

"higher speeds"?

Done.

"the first vessel to be named after the Battle of Mons to join the Royal Navy" > "the first British vessel to be named after the Battle of Mons"

Done.

Suggest linking launched and flotilla

Done.

"as part of a new flotilla" why not name it?

Named.

"sweeps" is a little obscure is it not? Perhaps replace with "patrols" or something similar

Done. Replaced by patrols and sortie at the two places respectively.

"that aimed in drawing out" > "that were aimed to draw out"

Done.

Suggest more precise date for Jutland (which was in 1916!)

Done.

Link battleline to line of battle?

Done.

"wartime conditions" > "wartime operations"

Done.

"only serving for only six years" one only must go!

Gone.

Infobox says ordered in September 1914, text says 1915

Fixed.

The figures for length and beam seem to be overly rounded in the infobox compared to text

Changed all to two significant figures for consistency.

Is there a commissioning date?
Unfortunately not in any of the sources. It seems that the date of completion is preferred by the Royal Navy at the time.

Design and development

"First Emergency War Programme" if there's no link I suggest a couple of words describing what this was
There is not much detail in the sources on how the programme relates to Mons. However, I nearly red-linked this as I feel there could be an article here. As per WP:GA?, it is important to remain "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail".
"The M-class" precedent suggests there shouldn't be a hyphen here
Removed.
"~~Although~~ envisioned" too many "although"s
Reworded.
"they were eventually designed..." possible to explain why?
The sources are unclear. I suggest this is probably something for the article on the class.
Link shafts to propeller?
Done.
"to give a design speed..." the speed had already been noted
Removed.
"funnels.A" space
Added.

Construction and career

"The ship was deployed" suggest changing to "She" so that you don't have too many sentences starting "the destroyer" or "the ship". Is there a particular date for her deployment, or can you stipulate that it was straight after her launching, etc?
Reworded.
Suggest if possible saying where the Grand Fleet was based
Added and cited.
Link flotillas
Done.
"The destroyer took part in a large naval exercise" what was the exercise?
Explanation added.
Link sorties
Done.
"the German fleet" why not link High Seas Fleet here instead of later on?
Done.
"30 May ~~1916~~" you've already introduced the current year
Removed.
"the flotilla was spotted" how was the flotilla spotted? I thought that it'd been split up, seeing as there's only 4 ships from it with the 1st and 4th BSs?
Reworded.
"attacked the German warships" can you say how/with what weapons?
Added.
"largely out of the action" specify then how they were still involved?
Reworded as the sources are unclear.
"rest of the battle" to avoid to many "remain"s
Reworded.
"While patrolling to the west..." is Mons still part of the Grand Fleet here?
The source does not say, but Mons is definitely part of the Eleventh flotilla of the Grand Fleet before and after (hence the following sentence).
"the conning tower..."
Done.
Link conning tower
Added.
"and attacked" with what? I didn't think she had any weapons that would have been viable against a submarine?
The source mentions a depth charge, so I have added that to both this section and above in Design and development.
"After the armistice" no reason not to provide the date here imo
Done.
"she was given" to avoid repetition of "the destroyer"
Reworded.
"completement" assume you mean complement
Fixed.
Link decommissioned - is there a date for this?
Added. Unfortunately the sources do not say.
"Slough TC" is the TC an acronym for something?
The source does not say. Some of the yards have pages but I do not believe this does.

References

Karau is not referenced in text
Removed.
The Navy List is a published work and so should be listed in the bibliography instead of just in the citations as if it were a webpage
I am following the precedent in other GAs here (for example HMS Monarch and HMS Morris).

@Simongraham: That's all I have for now, will await your replies. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you for your review. Please see my amends and comments above. simongraham (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: I've made some small and hopefully uncontroversial edits to the article to clean up a few very minor points, and believe the article satisfies the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]