Talk:HMSAS Protea (1947)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 21:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Grabbing this for a review. Miyagawa (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Infobox: Would be good if the armament could be specified to have only been in place while she was the Rockrose. Perhaps a date range should be added?
 * I added a caption "(as built)" to the infobox to clarify the data.
 * Likewise, the displacement changed following the conversion. Is there a way this could be incorporated into the infobox?
 * Generally, I prefer not to enlarge the infobox barring major reconstructions. I've already received complaints that they're too long as is for ships.
 * Lead: What's the general consensus on linking things like Royal Navy and World War II? Should they be added, or would it be WP:OVERLINK?
 * I should have linked them. I interpret Overlink to be multiple links in the same article.
 * Link South African Navy where appropriate.
 * Linked in the lede.
 * Final comment and more a stylistic thing than anything - if you broke the second paragraph of Construction and career into two, starting with "The following year" then you'd have three equal sized paragraphs.
 * OK, done.

As always, just nitpicks. Good job as usual! :) Miyagawa (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this so quickly. I do plan on taking as many South African ships as I can to GA, although too many are either starts or redlinks for me to challenge your total. So watch this space!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, happy to promote. I must at some point get some Chinese ships on the go for Asian month. Miyagawa (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)