Talk:HMS Tiptoe (P332)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Tiptoe (P332)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Benea (talk • contribs • count) 17:40, 19 September 2011 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The fate in the infobox is given as 'scrapped 1979', while in the article it is 'sold in 1971 and scrapped at Portsmouth in 1975'. Can this be resolved? The claim that 'she carried out the final torpedo attack of the Second World War' is quite a dramatic one, but that sentence is not cited, nor does the information appear in the two sources used in that paragraph. It's somewhat suspect as well, does it mean last torpedo attack by a submarine? Last by allied forces? Last by a British submarine? To take one dis-confirming example, USS Jallao (SS-368) sank a freighter on 11 August. It's curious to see two builders listed. What was their role in this, did one build the hull while the other fitted her out? Where was she launched? The design and description section should include this, as information in the lead needs to be cited in the article body, and cites for the dates used in the infobox would be best placed here.

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A few minor referencing issues, nothing too major to fix, so I am placing this on hold to allow for these issues to be addressed before passing the article.

Made a few edits following your comments. Firstly I looked again at the building information as it was something taken for granted as it was on the article beforehand. I can't find any evidence of co working between the two builders, and Tiptoe was a Barrow boat, not a Clyde boat. I've removed John Brown from the builders list. The only thing I can find which might be a possibility although I have been unable to make certain that it was the case with Tiptoe is that John Brown built some of the engines for t-class subs which were then delivered to Vickers in Barrow for installation. Like I said, I can't confirm that was the case with this one, so I've omitted it. Regarding the torpedo attack line - it should have been "by a Royal Navy submarine" which has now been added - I'd added that to the lead but not to the body. Added dates in a new paragraph under design and added the missing ship's honour. Miyagawa (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The VA/JB information is in uboat.net on inspection, but without any clarification. It may well be the engine issue as you say. If so that can be re-added to the article if it can be cited, otherwise it is enough to simply state VA was the builder. The rest of the edits address most of my concerns, with the exception of the 'last RN submarine attack'. It is not in the Cressman article, rather it is inferred from it in that he doesn't list any later attacks. It's perhaps not unreasonable to make the inference, but I think it would count as OR. Unless there is a source that explicitly states Tiptoe made the final attack, I don't think we can include that statement here. Benea (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I've removed the reference to it being the last RN sub attack from the article as I can't find anything that specifically says it. Miyagawa (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case everything seems to have been addressed, all criteria met, I'm passing this as a GA class article. Benea (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)