Talk:HMS Onslaught (1915)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 13:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image appropriately licensed.
- Thank you for the good news first!
The lede is rather confusing. Remember that it's supposed to be a summary, but you've got a lot of exact details. You mention the sinking of Pommern twice, albeit only once by name. I'd suggest reordering the sentences along the lines of 1) M class better, 2)Launched (linking launched) in 1915, 3) Participated in Jutland where she sank the only German battleship to be lost 4) Mention that she participated in the Action of 19 August 5)last two sentences are fine as is, although I'd shorten the date of her sale to just 1921.
- That is very helpful. I have amended this.
I'd suggest changing the link for the long ton conversion to lk=on as Americans don't know how much a metric ton weighs. Both in the infobox and in the main body.
- Good point. Added.
I'd also suggest adding the |ship power field to the infobox and moving the boilers and horsepower data to it. Also add a |lk=on to the shp conversion. Add the number of shafts to the propulsion field.
- Done.
I'd suggest deleting the model numbers from the weapons field in the infobox as well as the parenthetical info by using 2 × twin, etc. to inform the reader about weapons per mount.
- Done.
Move the QF designation in front of the caliber and model # with a link.
- Moved.
Tell the reader what type of ship Shark is
- Done.
placed in reserve and reduced "reduced to reserve"
- Changed.
Conway's Fighting Ships is actually an anthology with chapters written by different authors, in this case the British chapter was written by Antony Preston
- Thank you. I did not realise. Preston is listed as a "contributor" on the copyright page in my edition rather than an author in a byline.
  - You haven't been alone in that. It took Parsecboy and myself over a decade to notice that, and only after it had been pointed out to us by another editor!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the Royal Navy returned to a peacetime level of mobilisation Mobilisation implies something beyond ordinary strength levels. Replace mobilisation with strength
- Replaced.
Spot checks made, no issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you very much for your review. I think all the amendments are done. simongraham (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'd suggest that follow this format for your other ship articles as I think that it's very compact without too much extraneous detail in the infobox and has all the necessary links for further investigation by readers if they're interested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]