Talk:HMS Topaze (1903)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take this one. Reviewing shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim

Protected cruiser and nautical mile are duplicated links
- Done.
No edit wars
Image is correctly licensed
Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

Suggest changing protected cruiser link to more direct Protected cruiser#Britain
- Done.
"with the Royal Navy" > "in the Royal Navy" - to me "with" sounds like an attachment
OK.
"was the lead of the class" > "was the lead ship of the class"
- Amended.
"more powerful" stipulate in what way.
- Clarified. There is more detail in the body.
"to the front" what front?
- Clarified.
"sold and broken up in Germany" date?
- Sentence removed as superfluous.
Namesake is not mentioned in main text
- Referenced text added.
Normal load not mentioned in main text
- Removed.
Beam differs between infobox and text
- Reconciled.

Design and development

"third class" hyphen
- Added.
"1902/1903 Programme" No link, so programme of what?
- It is the term used by the Admiralty in the sources. A cursory look did not yield much more information so that is a possible good area for a new article.
"The design was generally similar" Considering you go on to name several very important ways in which they were not generally similar, would you be able to stipulate more specifically what the similarities were?
- That is a good point. Clarified.
"The destroyer" turnover from a previous article?
- I have been doing too many articles on destroyers…
Link long ton
- Added.
Shafts needs an appropriate link
- Wikilinked to propeller shaft as that is what is used in the HMS Clive article..
"design range" or designed range?
- The source says "design range", analogous to "design speed".
Link broadside (naval)
- Added.
"and four" > "with four"?
- Done
"two tubes for 18 in (457 mm) torpedoes were fitted" when?
- Clarified.
"it was less" thinner?
"on the flat" this seems a little too technical, average reader might not understand what part of the ship this refers to
- Agreed. I have reworded the sentence to make it clearer.

Construction and career

Link Royal Navy
- Done.
The Cruiser Squadron was disbanded in 1905, according to its article. Where did Topaze go after this?
- The source does not say.
"For the following decade, the ship served in various capacities in the fleet." doesn't seem like a useful inclusion
- Removed.
"act as the leader for destroyers" does this mean with the 4th flotilla or elsewhere? bit vague
- Removed.
"On 1 April, the cruiser was commissioned" what? we've just been told that she's transferred to the 6th BS but now she's being recommissioned? feel like there's information missing here, no context as to why she was being commissioned at this point
- Clarified.
"The destroyer remained" another "destroyer" snuck in!
- Oops.
"as ievery vessel is denuded" ?
- Removed.
"the ship joined the battleship" is this Prince of Wales? Was under the impression she was already with her
- Clarified.
"on 1 January" stipulate the year
- Added.
"The increasing need for naval vessels" for what reason?
- Added.
Link Dover
- Linked.
"The combined force" > "The combined squadron"? there's a lot of "force" in this sentence
- True. Reworded.
"A typical patrol after 27 November" why after this date?
- Clarified.
"escorting Italian troops and supplies to the front" what front?
- Reworded to clarfiy.
"on 4 December, that the cruiser was attacked..." attacked by what? what happened?!
- Expanded with reference.
"On 4 March 1917" have we just skipped an entire year of service?
- Explained.
"8 destroyers" number consistency suggests this should be spelled out
- Done.
"After the Armistice of 11 November 1918" another gap here - possible perhaps to outline what the British Adriatic Squadron did?
- Explained.
An extra image might be nice, but is in no way necessary. Perhaps File:German U-Boat U-24 sinks the HMS Formidable New Year's Eve 1914-15.jpg?
- Nice idea. Added.

References

Corbett 1997 is not used
- Removed.
Otherwise references look good
- Thank you.

@Simongraham: That's all I have for now. Will await your responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you. Please see the amendments on the page and comments above. simongraham (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Apologies for my absence. Sometimes life really comes up and smacks you in the mouth! I've made a few minor changes of my own and leave you these queries:

No problem. I hope things are OK.

Link deep load in text?

Done.

First paragraph of design and development is now unreferenced

Oops. Added.

First paragraph of construction and career could do with a couple less "recommissioned"s

Reworded.

"the vessel shelled and captured..." some context as to why would be useful here

Expanded.

"joining the Egyptian Division" while it seems obvious, there is no link for the division; able to say exactly where it was based perhaps?

Clarified.

"The need at the time..." can you stipulate more confidently that this was the role subsequently undertaken by Topaze?

There does not seem to be anything explicit in the sources, it is just implied.

Corbett 1997 is not used in text

Bother. I thought that had gone already.

References #6 and #7 don't have links? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. I had not realised that there were so many copies of The Navy List from the period on archive.org.

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you for all your work on this. Please take a look at my amendments. simongraham (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Happy with the changes you've made. Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Being only four ships in the class, perhaps a good topic might be possible? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]