Talk:HMS Spiteful (1899)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga! I'll respond and sign at each point asap. Nortonius (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • A comma (,) after "In 1913"

    This and several other commas you would like to see below are, I believe, a matter of style – compare e.g. this discussion – and my preference is to have fewer commas rather than more. Nortonius (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • P 73 (to 1915), D 91 (to 1918), D 76 (to 1920); make them date ranges I mean 1900–1915, 1915–1918 etc.

    Done. Nortonius (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Sold for scrap 14 September 1920 -> Sold for scrap, 14 September 1920

    See my response to "A comma (,) after 'In 1913'" above. Nortonius (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 1;
  • Isn't the commissioning date available?

    I haven't seen it anywhere: the sources Lyon 2005 and Gardiner 1979 only use the word "completed". Also Lyon 2005 is, I think, the most recent and fullest source for this type of ship, and it uses "completed" for all ships discussed – or rather I haven't seen "commissioned" anywhere. With specific reference to this ship it may not be surprising, since Lyon 2005 notes (p. 80) that it is not known when the ship was ordered or when it was specified to be delivered. Nortonius (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • development of that for HMS Star? A short context on the developments made

    The source (Lyon 2005, p. 80) says only that this ship was "practically a repeat of the Star class": beyond differences in dimensions, I do not have any sources that clarify what other differences there may have been. Even mentioning differences in dimensions would, I think, be WP:SYNTHESIS, since no source specifies them explicitly: only the dimensions for each ship, which are different. I only included this as a pointer for the reader and would rather delete it than expand it. What do you think? On further investigation I think I've got this covered now using points I'd missed or used elsewhere, what do you think? Nortonius (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Units must be in full on their first mention, 220 ft (67.1 m)

    Oh, I've not encountered this requirement before. I'm happy to oblige and I've made related changes but would you mind pointing me to the relevant section of the MOS, for future reference? Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • What do you mean by wet and uncomfortable?

    I'm sorry, I thought this was self-evident – would you prefer "wet and uncomfortable [for the crew]", which is meant? Nortonius (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • A comma (,) after "As ordered"

    See my response to "A comma (,) after 'In 1913'" above. Nortonius (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • conversion for 30 knots, 29.9 knots, 30.371 knots, 13.05 knots

    "knots" is wikilinked to "Knot (unit)", where conversions are given, and a conversion here would require e.g. "30 knots (35.5 miles per hour; 55.5 kilometres per hour)", which I think would be excessive given the existence of the wikilink. Nortonius (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • A comma (,) after "In ships of her type"

    See my response to "A comma (,) after 'In 1913'" above. Nortonius (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Link fore-and-aft

    Unless you know better the only link available for "fore-and-aft" is at Fore-and-aft rig, which is solely related to sailing vessels. The first dictionary I looked at has a suitable definition for this expression; but I could change it to something like "in line with the ship's longitudinal axis", if you prefer. Note that the only link available for "longitudinal axis" relates solely to aircraft. Such is Wikipedia ... Nortonius (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • IHP per hour; mention IHP in full as it is the first mention

    Ok, done. Nortonius (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • conversion for 4,000 nautical miles

    See my response to "conversion for 30 knots" above: conversions are given at Nautical mile. Nortonius (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • pendant numbers; I think it is pennant

    It is now: before 1948 (according to Pennant number, and I'm sure this detail would be WP:UNDUE in this article) it was "pendant number", and this is the form used in the relevant citation in this article of Manning 1961, p. 34. This ship only ever had a "pendant number". However, if you feel this might be pe(n)dantic I can change it. Nortonius (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • From 10 July to 3 August 1900 -> From 10 July 1900 to 3 August 1900, per MOS:DATERANGE

    I'm sorry, I don't understand: MOS:DATERANGE gives examples as "between specific dates in different months: They travelled June 3 – August 18, 1952;  They travelled 3 June – 18 August 1952". In the present context I have used the form "from ... to ...", which I think is perfectly acceptable in preference to dashes. Nortonius (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Comma (,) after
    • From 10 July to 3 August 1900
    • From 11 January 1901 to 24 February 1902
    • In February 1901
    • In 1905
    • In 1913
    • From August 1914
    • From June 1915
    • On 6 September 1916
    • Also check the similar instances which I might have missed, also in section 3

      See my response to "A comma (,) after 'In 1913'" above. Nortonius (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • under the command of Douglas Nicholson; what was the then rank of Douglas

    Fixed. Nortonius (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • who later became a rear admiral and then a vice admiral -> later vice admiral, the former is redundant to the latter. The highest attained is enough

    If you have time, might you explain the redundancy? I merely mean that I don't know that one couldn't become a vice admiral without first being a rear admiral, for example. But I accept that the highest attained is enough here, so done. Nortonius (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • On 23 October the same year; per MOS:DATEVAR

    I'm sorry, I don't see how MOS:DATEVAR requires this change, could you give me a specific quotation or pointer? In my own reading I am grateful when these things are made as clear as possible. For example, would you prefer something like "Later that year, on 23 October, ..."? Nortonius (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • On Wednesday 5 August 1907

    Done. There is reason to specify the day of the week here, as "the preceding Saturday" is mentioned in the associated footnote, so it helps the reader; but I don't think it's so important. Nortonius (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • From June the following year -> From June 1914

    Done – I must've been in a prosey mood! Nortonius (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • her "Chief Artificer Engineer" was based; drop the quotes, make it general prose; her chief artificer engineer was based

    I used scare quotes here because I had never seen this rank or title before, and there is no link for it; linking it as "chief artificer engineer" is possible, but perhaps a bit cumbersome and more to the point may be WP:SYNTHESIS. That is, I don't have a source that says this rank or title was for both a chief artificer and a chief engineer in one person. Nortonius (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 3;
  • place of coal: in July that year -> place of coal. In July,

    I've made this two sentences as you suggest: I believe I kept it as one sentence because what is now the first makes an extraordinary claim, which I thought would require a citation. However, if you feel that the subject is adequately discussed and sourced thereafter then I'm happy with two sentences. I've kept "that year" to specify which "July", as we couldn't very well have 1904 in both sentences. Nortonius (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Section 4.2;
  • Lyon 2005, pp. 16; 112–3; 112–3?
  • Lyon 2005, pp. 15–6; 15–6?
  • Lyon 2005, pp. 24–5; 24–5?
    • Why are these ranges in reverse? Some cases do exist in 4.3

      This is a common format for page ranges in references, I'm not sure what you mean by "in reverse": for example "pp. 112–3" is "pages 112 to 113". Nortonius (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• One dead link

  I see that you have checked this via dispenser.homenet.org: if you click on the link in the article you'll find it's not dead. Under "Analysis" dispenser.homenet.org reports "Changes domain and redirect to /", but again clicking the link in the article produces no such changes. This makes me doubt the efficiency of dispenser.homenet.org in this instance. Perhaps it is related to the fact that archive.org reports "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt." Otherwise, indeed, I would have archived it. Nortonius (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• 36.7% confidence

  This text is in an attributed, direct quotation in a footnote, so no copyvio. At the time of writing, the footnote is no. 20. Nortonius (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for what seems to be a thorough review, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, I'll be pleased to respond to any further comments you may wish to make. Nortonius (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nortonius: Seems good, will take a final skim before it is passed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, I'm looking forward to that! Nortonius (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

All good. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough and helpful review, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga! Nortonius (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)