Talk:HMS Lord Clive/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 19:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look a look at this one. simongraham (talk)

Criteria
The six good article criteria:
 * Well written
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout etc.


 * Verifiable
 * it contains a list of all references, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research; and
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.


 * Broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.


 * Neutral
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.


 * Stable
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.


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

Review

 * In the infobox, there is an unnecessary "single" before "3 in (76 mm) AA guns".
 * Add the others to make things consistent
 * The infobox mentions a single speed and a single beam but there are multiples in the text. I think we need to clarify which one we are talking about.
 * Inline references are unclear in the first paragraph of the Design section, the first paragraph under the section Armament, fire control, and armour and many others as there are only citations at the end of the paragraph and these are frequently for multiple pages in the same book. Is there a reason that this has not been broken down so that we can see which page relates to which part of the paragraphs?
 * Frequently there's significant overlap between the sources and I see no need to clutter up the pages with a plethora of cites for each individual fact.
 * The overall length is given as "102.3 m" in the infobox and "102.26 m" in the body. I guess this is a a discrepancy in the templates.
 * Good catch.
 * Is there a reason that the ft in abbreviation is not used for the lengths? I thought it was only necessary to use the full non-abbreviated form the first time but I may be wrong. Similarly, for consistency, expand the first instance of nmi.
 * I tend not to abbreviate units, although I make an exception for long ones like nautical miles on second use.
 * The sentence "The engine were designed to produce at total of 2,310 indicated horsepower (1,720 kW) intended gave her a maximum speed of 10 knots (18.5 km/h; 11.5 mph)" has multiple issues.
 * Either "engines were" or "engine was".
 * "produce at total of" should be "produce a total of".
 * It is a run-on sentence; maybe it needs to have "and was" before "intended"?
 * "intended gave" should be "intended to give"
 * The sentence is very long and is followed by one that is very short. Suggest switching the subclause "although the ship only reached 7 knots (13.0 km/h; 8.1 mph) in service." to be part of the next sentence, thus maybe: "Although on her sea trials she made 8.02 kn (14.9 km/h; 9.2 mph), Lord Clive only reached 7 kn (13.0 km/h; 8.1 mph) in service." Also it would be good to know why there was such a big difference between the design and service speeds.
 * Wow, that was a dog's breakfast! That speed issue is best reserved for the class article where it can be covered at length, IMO.
 * Replace the Majestics with Magnificent.
 * "the crew increased" should read "increasing the crew".
 * There are two instances of the spelling "draft" rather than "draught".
 * The first paragraph of Construction and career has a reference halfway through the first sentence but the rest of it has none. This seems unclear.
 * The terminal cites cover everything after the first cite.
 * "The British judged this a good first". Do we know who made this judgement? Was it the Admiralty, Parliament or the press?
 * Not given in the source
 * Remove extraneous bracket before "Tirpitz"
 * The phrase "newly developed air-spotting techniques" is repeated twice. Were they different techniques?
 * No, I just confused the two operations
 * Remove "was" from "a plan was to".
 * The paragraph starting "Lord Clive was drydocked" has a lot of sentences all starting with "She". Stylistically, I think it would be nice to have a bit of a variation.
 * Indeed.
 * "Link "scrap" or replace with "broken up" and link.
 * Linked in the lede
 * Friedman is the bibliography but not referenced in the text.
 * Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Other comments

 * Do we know when were the 6-in guns replaced by 4-in and why? It seems retrograde given the success of the gun mentioned later.
 * Sadly, no.
 * German coastal battery Tirpitz is a Romanian battery of the period. Is it related to the one mentioned in the article?
 * Uncertain, although they both used guns of the same caliber.
 * There seems to be a lot of reliance on Buxton. There is a lot of information on the bombardments in Volume 18 of the Naval Monographs[] which would definitely enhance the article. I suggest that there could also be good information on Corbett and Jane's too.
 * Corbett has a less detailed account than Buxton. I don't believe that Jane's would have anything to contribute as it's considerably less detailed than Conways, which is mostly superceded by Buxton's more detailed account. I tend to forget the Naval monographs, so lemme see what I can profitably extract for that volume.
 * Great work overall on a very unusual Royal Navy warship. simongraham (talk)
 * See if my changes are satisfactory. Thanks for taking the time to review this nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a pleasure. simongraham (talk)