Talk:HMS Staunch (1910)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I look forward to your comments. simongraham (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the existing photo of Staunch is probably copyright-free, it's lacking in publishing data to determine if it is or isn't.
Don't settle for whatever's on Commons if it's got crappy sourcing or is bad quality. Especially for British ships where the Imperial War Museum's photograph section is a gold-mine of copyright-free images. I've replaced the original photo with one from their collection that is copyright free, no matter what their webpage claims. You can use the upload I just did as a model for uploads of your own and feel free to ping me if you like me to walk you through the process in the future.
- Thank you. That is an excellent find. I am not experienced in finding and uploading images to Wikimedia so that is very helpful.
The fate field in the infobox needs a date
- Added.
You've got a bit more information in the first para of the design section than I think is really necessary. Much of it is better placed in the class article. I generally like to use a single sentence saying that the X class ships were an improved version of the preceding class, with a reason why. Just a suggestion here though.
- That is a good point. I feel that the fact that these destroyers were such an importance step in the development of steam turbines and class standardisation that both these are worthy of mention, but I have edited the whole paragraph down a bit.
  - I'd suggest moving the bit about standarizing the designs of the Acorns down to the construction paragraph.
    - Moved.
Parsons supplied a complex of seven turbines, a high-pressure and two low pressure for high speed, two turbines for cruising and two for running astern, driving three shafts. The high-pressure turbine drove the centre shaft, the remainder being distributed amongst two wing-shafts. This is a bit complicated and can stand to be simplified, IMO. I think that it's important to say that this is a single turbine set, with multiple turbines in separate casings (as the technology improved, the turbines would gradually be consolidated into a single casing). Probably worth mentioning that the turbines were [[Direct-drive mechanism|direct-drive]] as well.
- These are very good points. As well as consolidating and simplifying the sentences, I have added the point about the turbine set and the wikilink.
The proportions of the funnels isn't really notable. You could say that the boilers exhausted their combustion gases through three funnels or somesuch.
- Removed.
Link shaft horsepower (link=on), knots (link=in)
- Added.
  - FYI, knots are never abbreviated and you changed knots to abbr=in rather than link=in
    - Oops. Fixed.
year number? I think you mean yard number!
- Yes. Corrected.
The ship was fifth in navy service given the name staunch, which had been first used in 1797 awkward
- I have split the sentence. Please tell me if this is insufficient.
  - I don't really see any importance to when the first Staunch was named, but that's just me. I think that your previous wording was better if you decide to keep it. But either way, be sure to add 'the' before 'fifth'
    - I am happy to remove the reference to the first naming; I have also added the definite article.
practice cruise training
- Amended.
January 1915 found the vessel attached the Grand Fleet. "to" and which DD flotilla?
- Added.
Have you checked Jellicoe's history of the Grand Fleet for any mentions of Staunch? His coverage of the little boys like Staunch isn't great, but...
- Yes. Unfortunately I could find nothing extra of note.
Suggest combining these two sentences: It was not until 9 January 1916 that the destroyer was able to approach one of the hulks that lay offshore and help the evacuation.[27] The ship succeeded in saving the majority of a battalion of the Worcestershire Regiment
- Combined.
  - I think that this one still needs work. The 'but' is unnecessary so I'd suggest something on these lines: destroyer was able to approach one of the hulks that lay offshore and was able to save the majority of a battalion of the Worcestershire Regiment.
    - I have amended it to the text you suggest.
As should these: He launched torpedoes at M15 and Staunch.[30][31] Both ships sank, and eight sailors aboard Staunch were killed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Consolidated with the final sentence to make two out of three.

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for your thorough review. I believe all the changes have been made. simongraham (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

few minor issues remain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sturmvogel 66: Thank you. I believe I have made the amendments. simongraham (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]