Talk:HMS Pallas (1816)

HMS Pallas (1816) 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: November 13, 2023. (Reviewed version).

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

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Napoleonic era

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
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Pallas (1816)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one in due course. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

frigate spent time blockading the Azores being making trips to India: something off here, perhaps "being" should be "before"?

Oops, was meant to be "before making..."

Design

cites 1 and 2 are in reverse order (if that's a thing for you). Same issue with first paragraph of design section

Fixed

the cite at the end of the second to last sentence of the second paragraph is redundant since it is the same as the last cite of the paragraph

Good catch, this used to be a separate paragraph

Construction

I see there is two different dates for the reorder, but you've gone with Winfield for the infobox? I assume there is no such inconsistency with the date of being laid down?

I've gone with Winfield as the more modern source. The re-order is the only controversial date.

Complimenting should be Complementing

Changed

Service

Looks all good to me

Other stuff

Happy to AGF on sources given history of nominator
Put the 1999 Gardiner ref ahead of the 2000 one
Image tags all OK
No dupe links

That's all I have for now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for going through this! I've replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all good here, I am passing as GA because I believe the article meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]