Talk:HMS Wessex (R78)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 09:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 09:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1; para 3; It is mentioned that to defend the ship from the Japanese, several modifications were made. But why were these made, is there any conflict going on at that time (I think it is World War II). If it is so, please mention something about that. Also the infobox doesn't reflect these changes. Please add them there, though infobox doesn't fall under the GA criteria, the latter is just a suggestion.
  • I've reworked the lede to clarify that the Japanese were in the war; hopefully that works well enough to satisfy your issue.
• Section 2; para 1; sentence 2; Use of "and" is repetitive.
• Section 2; para 1; I think a comma (,) after "By October 1944" is needed.
  • Reworked the sentence, see how it reads now.
• Section 2; para 1; Link Eastern Fleet
  • Linked in the lede.
• Section 2; para 1; Please name the conflict that was going on, unless, it would be of no idea why were these attacks done to a casual reader.
  • Reworked the lede to clarify
• Section 2; para 1; Mention the time of Operation Robson, and also Millet and Meridian.
• Section 2; para 1; "During Operation Robson, an aerial attack on the oil refinery complex at Pangkalan Brandan, Sumatra, in mid-December" is a but awkward. I feel some link is missing; there is no relation between the aerial attack and the oil refinery complex. I think it must be something like "During Operation Robson, an aerial attack was launched on the oil refinery complex at Pangkalan Brandan, Sumatra, in mid-December".
  • That whole clause leads up to the fact that the ship was escorting the main body of the fleet during Robson, not just the carriers like during Millet.
• Section 2; para 2; Link "British Pacific Fleet"
• Section 2; para 2; The last sentence is a bit awkward. There is a link missing. "in August–September preparation for the voyage to South Africa", this has no meaning.
  • Fixed.
• Section 2; para 3; "commissioned that day as", may be reworded as "commissioned on the same day as"
  • No, the ship was renamed that day as Jan van Riebeck.

@Sturmvogel 66: All good apart from small errors. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 10:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, let me know if any issues remain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: All good to go. But can advise me under which category must this be listed, Ships of UK or South Africa, at GA/W? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 06:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

British ships, I suppose, based on the name of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2016 (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) 02:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)