Talk:HMS Tourmaline (1919)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Neopeius (talk · contribs) 18:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done! I can't check the citations directly as I have none of these books, but the location of the citations looks good, and I know Jane's and Conway's so I can surmise the information is correct. Structure matches other naval ships, so no criticism there. Just a few language suggestions:

Lede

"HMS Tourmaline was an S-class destroyer which" | Comma after "destroyer"

"Tourmaline was one of ~~the~~ destroyers ordered from Thornycroft" | "three" instead of "the"

"with more powerful geared turbines than the majority of the class and design changes like a raised forecastle that improved seakeeping." | How about "with more powerful geared turbines than the majority of the class as well as design changes that improved seakeeping."

"With the signing of the London Naval Treaty, the Royal Navy needed to retire some destroyers to meet the tonnage requirement and Tourmaline was chosen for retirement." | How about "The London Naval Treaty, signed 1930, required the retirement of some destroyers.."

"Thus, after just over ten years service, the destroyer was decommissioned on 28 November 1931 and scrapped." | How about ""The destroyer was decommissioned on 28 November 1931 after 12 years of service and scrapped." (12 years isn't a long time, but it isn't excessively short, either)

Service

"The fleet was soon in action in support the Volunteer Army" | "in support of the Volunteer Army"

"It was while on this service that the ship..." | "While on this service, the ship..."

"On 22 April 1930, the London Naval Treaty was signed which limited" | comma after signed

@Simongraham: That's it! :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Thank you for a really helpful review. All the amendments are done. simongraham (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: My pleasure! You can always ping me for a review. By the way (and this is in no way an expectation of tit for tat), if you want to take a gander at SOLRAD 4 and/or SOLRAD 4B (largely identical articles), I'd be obliged! --Neopeius (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]