Talk:G and H-class destroyer/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 18:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
 * Lenton, pp. 159–60 Multiple references contain the same content
 * l59 Multiple references are using the same name
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd).
 * Linkrot: no dead links (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no (unnecessary) duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "...The Havants spend most of the war..." → "...The Havants spent most of the war..."
 * "...participated in the Battle of Cape Matapan in March 1941 and covering the..." → "...participated in the Battle of Cape Matapan in March 1941 and covered the..."
 * "...the G class achieved this with a..." should it be "G-class" here for consistency?
 * Hyphens are only needed for compound adjectives like G-class destroyer where G and class together form an adjective that needs a hyphen. In "G class", the G modifies class and no hyphen is needed since there's no compound adjective at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "... and the J-, K- and N classes..." should it be "N-classes" (it seem inconsistent not hyphenating here that's all).
 * This is a mistake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "...As per the E and F class..." are hyphens needed here?
 * "...They are usually included with the H class..." Hypthen?
 * "... Vasilissa Olga, named after Queen Olga, she served..." → "... Vasilissa Olga, named after Queen Olga, served..." (delete "she" I think)
 * "...Along with other ships, escaped to Alexandria in May 1941..." → "...Along with other ships, she escaped to Alexandria in May 1941..." (add "she" here though)
 * "...Grenville and the G class..." hypthen?
 * "...spent the bulk of their time before the start of World War II in August 1939..." This seems a little awkwardly worded including "in August 1939", I wonder if it is almost not needed?
 * I agree.
 * "...They sank two German destroyers in exchange for the loss of Hardy and Hunter while Hotspur was badly damaged..." add a comma between "Hunter" and "while" I think.
 * "2nd Battle of Narvik..." seems inconsistently presented (consider you use "First Battle of Narvik" so I suggest "Second Battle of Narvik" here)
 * "...in September against the Vichy French forces there..." It might pay to wikilink "Vichy French" here as some of our readers might not understand the concept.
 * "...Griffin and Hotspur was..." → "...Griffin and Hotspur were..."
 * The "External links" section is empty (other than the commons cat box). Per WP:LAYOUT "Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates". As such the commons box should be moved to the top of the "References" section and the "External links" heading deleted unless links are added.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article looks well referenced to WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR I could see.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major aspects seem to be covered. A couple of minor points:
 * "The G class were ordered as part of the 1933 Naval Construction Programme..." ordered by whom is probably needed here for context. (Royal Navy would probably be sufficient I presume). Consider something like: "The G class were ordered for the Royal Navy as part of the 1933 Naval Construction Programme..." or something like that.
 * The lede sentence already tells the reader that they were built for the RN; is this not clear enough?
 * No. What if I didn't read the lead? Regardless, I'll leave it up to you. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Two ships, modified versions of the G class, were built for the Greek Royal Hellenic Navy (RHN) by Yarrow." Adding the dates of their construction might add context here.
 * Good idea.
 * Article uses summary style effectively and doesn't seem to go into unnecessary detail.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * All major viewpoints seem to be covered.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Images are either PD and have the appropriate information or are fair use and appear to have a valid rationale.
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article looks good to me, just a few mostly prose points and other minor points to work through / discuss before it can be promoted. As always I am happy to discuss any points that you disagree with (especially the hypthens - I really don't know when they are or are not req'd so I'm just asking you to check so that the article is correct). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All done, thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Passing now. I'd still recommend mentioning the Royal Navy in the "Design and description" section but that's just an opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)