Talk:NMS Regina Maria/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: L293D (talk · contribs) 22:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article - will be doing this in the next couple days. This review will be very similar to the one at Talk:NMS Regele Ferdinand/GA1, but this is not a copy and paste of it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Add a couple sentences about the laying down, launching, and commissioning after opening sentence.

Background and design

Add {{Main Article}} or {{See also}} to Regele Ferdinand-class destroyer
and the fire-control system was from Germany - remove "was".
The Regele Ferdinand-class ships had an overall length of 101.9 metres (334 ft 4 in), had a beam of 9.6 metres - remove second had.
and a mean draught of - what does "mean" do here?
Merge sentence 2 and 3 in second para.
Link 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 at the end of 4th para.

Construction and Career

named for Queen Marie of Romania - after would do better
laid down by Pattison[7] in 1927 at their Naples, Italy, shipyard. - reword, reads confusingly.
The ship was assigned to the Destroyer Squadron - was there only one destroyer squadron in Romania?
Link Constanța.
Link Crimean Offensive somewhere - that's what the boat did for most of its war service.
The phrase "the Romanians" comes up in two consecutive sentences in para 2 - change one to "Romanian Navy" or something similar.
when she was discarded - to my knowledge, discarded is not a nautical term. Stricken might do better.
- All done. See if my changes work for you. And thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.