Talk:HMS Duke of York (17)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 29 May 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Just a few spots of unclear prose and some conversions needed
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * The lead implies that she only escorted one convoy but in reality she did a couple of those, right? Suggest rewording "On 1 March 1942, Duke of York provided close escort for convoy PQ 12, along with the battlecruiser Renown, the cruiser Kenya and six destroyers." to "Between March and September 1942 Duke of York was involved with convoy escort duties, but in October she was dispatched to Gibralter."
 * Changed.
 * Suggest adding a sentence summarizing her actions before her engagement with Scharnhorst.
 * Changed.
 * Construction:
 * "During this period the Admiralty set in motion plans for the construction of a new battleship class, out of which the King George V-class battleships were born." A bit convoluted - can we rephrase or break into two sentences?
 * Changed. See how it reads now.
 * I'm a bit confused - when were the actual plans for the class drawn up?
 * Reworded that section see how it is now.
 * Why would the 16 inch guns have been more suitable?
 * Reworded that section see how it is now.
 * Description:
 * NOt required but a good idea - citations for the first paragraph here.
 * Oops, added ref's
 * Do we have an article describing what a "training arc" is?
 * No, but I have added a red link to it.
 * Operational history:
 * How'd Churchill get home?
 * By air, which I've just added in see how it fits now.
 * What type of ships were King George V (I presume battleship but can't hurt to be safe...), Victorious, and Berwick?
 * Changed.
 * "escorted Convoy QP 14." Or should this be "PQ 14"?
 * No, QP is the correct name for that convoy.
 * Action:
 * Conversion for "29,700 yards" "5.25-inch" "12,000 yards" "14-inch" "10,400 yards" "ten knots"
 * Fixed.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "escorted Convoy QP 14." Or should this be "PQ 14"?
 * No, QP is the correct name for that convoy.
 * Action:
 * Conversion for "29,700 yards" "5.25-inch" "12,000 yards" "14-inch" "10,400 yards" "ten knots"
 * Fixed.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! If their are any other changes you should think I should make please let me no. Thurgate (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, passing this now... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)