Talk:HMS Glasgow (1909)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article for GAN shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, this looks pretty good to me. I just have a few minor observations/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * suggest mentioning that it was part of the Bristol sub class in the lead
 * is the complement of 410 mentioned in the body?
 * It is now.
 * A German supply ship was already there and radioed Spee: has Spee been introduced at this point?
 * He is now.
 * southeasterly: "south-easterly"?
 * dueled: "duelled"?
 * manoeuvered: "manoeuvred"
 * before she scuttled herself: perhaps "before she was scuttled" or "before being scuttled"?
 * in the first paragraph of the Subsequent activities section, do we know what the ship did between February 1916 and 14 October 1916? The narrative seems to jump after the ship sails for the South American coast in February to October when it arrives back in Simon's Town.
 * More of the same, really, but now explicitly stated.
 * in the second paragraph of the Subsequent activities section, do we know what happened between January 1917 and 1918?
 * Not with any certainty as that logbook hasn't been transcribed.
 * are there any details on actions/roles between July and October 1918?
 * No. British activity in the Adriatic is particularly poorly documented.
 * No worries, hopefully one day that will be rectified. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Gibraltar on 30 January: perhaps add the year here
 * The year is mentioned in the previous sentence.
 * So it is, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * in the Citations: "Friedman, p. 411" --> 2010 or 2011?
 * in the Bibliography: "HMS GLASGOW - March": decaps per MOS:ALLCAPS and add an endash
 * in the Bibliography: Halpern is listed, but it doesn't appear to be used as a citation -- maybe move it to a Further reading section?
 * Ext links all work (no action required)
 * no dabs or dup links identified (no action required)
 * "File:SMS Leipzig sinking.jpg": needs a US licence in addition to the current one
 * Thanks for your typically thorough review. See if my changes suit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, the article looks good. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: ✅


 * a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.