Talk:HMS Raleigh (1919)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 09:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will post a review shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments: G'day, Sturm, nice work. I have a few relatively minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please add a citation at the end of the paragraph ending with "On 3 August, Pakenham transferred his flag to the light cruiser HMS Calcutta and Raleigh became a private ship."
and dismissed their ship --> "dismissed from their ship"?
- For some undoubtedly archaic reason, the formal verdict doesn't use "from".
should there be a full bibliographic entry for the Engineering, 24 September 1920 source?
- Too many "Engineerings" to figure out which one was meant.
in the References, Raven is out of order (alphabetically)
the infobox states that the ship was ordered on 12 December 1915, but I couldn't find that date in the body of the article
- I can't find it anywhere so deleted.
A dozen sailors died as the crew abandoned ship due to drowning and hypothermia --> " A dozen sailors died due to drowning and hypothermia as the crew abandoned ship"?
unless I missed it, I couldn't see the 2 x 2-pdrs mentioned in the body
same as above for the deck and gun shield armour figures
"File:HMS Raleigh at Pier D Vancouver 1921.jpg": this probably needs a US licence in addition to the current one used
- Thanks for catching all these annoying little issues, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, Sturm, thanks for your efforts. A rather undignified end for such a ship. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much the same happens to her sister Effingham. Almost as if the class was cursed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well written: Y

a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: Y

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

c. it contains no original research; and

d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: Y

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.