Talk:HMS P222/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 18:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look at this one. —Ed!(talk) 18:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Dab links, dup links, external links tools all show no problems. Copyvio detector shows green.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Not Yet
 * Is there a date for the caption of the lead image?
 * Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Design and description: Might be good to start the section of explaining what the S class was, role and/or if this was a line of similar type ships or an outlier, as jumping in to talk about batches starts it off a bit disjointed.
 * Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Though the boat did not encounter enemy forces, the convoy operation was largely successful" -- This seems to imply the patrol have been unsuccessful unless it was attacked? Not entirely clear on phrasing.
 * Re:sinking: Were there any efforts to search for her worth mentioning?
 * None that we've found.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Her wreck was claimed to have been found off Cape Negro, Tunisia, by a Belgian amateur diver, but there has been no confirmation of the finding.[7]" -- What year was this? Any efforts to verify the wreckage?
 * Not that we know of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Have generally discouraged the use of the term "enemy" in articles, in favor of more neutral explanation of OpFor in question, in this case Axis/Nazi German/Italian ships. Thoughts?
 * No, enemy is perfectly reasonable in this context.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass Two images tagged PD where appropriate.
 * 1) Other:
 * On Hold Nothing major, but a few points to address before passing GAN. —Ed!(talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nothing significant enough to hold further. Passing GA. —Ed!(talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)