Talk:Briton-class corvette/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: The Bushranger (talk · contribs) 07:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Very nice work here on some rather obscure ships. Just a few niggling things keeping this from passing:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Nits picked:
 * 1) * "...all three ships only served...", suggest "all three ships of the class..."
 * 2) * "during their brief lives"; suggest "brief service lives"
 * 3) * "...the Director of Naval Construction", suggest "of the Admiralty" or "the Admiralty's..."
 * 4) **I think this one's OK, actually.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) * "...speed over 13 knots"..., I think "of" shoud be in there?
 * 6) **No, they were faster 13 knots.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) * "They were poor sailors", suggest "the ships were" as some readers could presume the ship's crew was being referred to somehow.
 * 8) * "Her crew was relieved in 1884 and the ship remained on station...[until] 1887", was Briton crewless at this time, laid up at anchor? Or was another crew put aboard?
 * 9) * "followed her sisters after a two year delay...", accurate but looks slightly awkward. Perhaps "The construction of Thetis..."?
 * 10) * "China Station" should be wikilinked (are there pages for any of the other Stations?)
 * 11) **Added and all are linked in the lede. All other comments addressed except as noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article is well-referenced to reputable sources and avoids OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article provides a good overview of the class, and the descriptions of each ship are suitable leadins to their own articles, without needless digression.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article is presented neutrally and fairly.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article does not appear to be involved in any editing disputes.
 * 1) 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):
 * Article lacks images; I assume this is because there are simply no suitable free-use images that could be provided?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * As I said, there's just a few minor things that need addressing here, so I'm putting this on hold until they can be tweaked. The Bushranger One ping only - 07:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Pass! - The Bushranger One ping only 20:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)