Talk:HMS P222/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HMS P222. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808171910/http://www.rnsubmus.co.uk/general/losses.htm to http://www.rnsubmus.co.uk/general/losses.htm#p222

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS P222/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 18:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 18:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Dab links, dup links, external links tools all show no problems. Copyvio detector shows green.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • Is there a date for the caption of the lead image?

• Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • Design and description: Might be good to start the section of explaining what the S class was, role and/or if this was a line of similar type ships or an outlier, as jumping in to talk about batches starts it off a bit disjointed.

• Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "Though the boat did not encounter enemy forces, the convoy operation was largely successful" -- This seems to imply the patrol have been unsuccessful unless it was attacked? Not entirely clear on phrasing.
   • Re:sinking: Were there any efforts to search for her worth mentioning?

• None that we've found.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "Her wreck was claimed to have been found off Cape Negro, Tunisia, by a Belgian amateur diver, but there has been no confirmation of the finding.[7]" -- What year was this? Any efforts to verify the wreckage?

• Not that we know of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • Have generally discouraged the use of the term "enemy" in articles, in favor of more neutral explanation of OpFor in question, in this case Axis/Nazi German/Italian ships. Thoughts?

• No, enemy is perfectly reasonable in this context.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Two images tagged PD where appropriate.

3. Other:

   On Hold Nothing major, but a few points to address before passing GAN. —Ed!^(talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nothing significant enough to hold further. Passing GA. —Ed!^(talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)