Talk:HMS Raleigh (1919)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 09:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I will post a review shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments: G'day, Sturm, nice work. I have a few relatively minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * please add a citation at the end of the paragraph ending with "On 3 August, Pakenham transferred his flag to the light cruiser HMS Calcutta and Raleigh became a private ship."
 * and dismissed their ship --> "dismissed from their ship"?
 * For some undoubtedly archaic reason, the formal verdict doesn't use "from".
 * should there be a full bibliographic entry for the Engineering, 24 September 1920 source?
 * Too many "Engineerings" to figure out which one was meant.
 * in the References, Raven is out of order (alphabetically)
 * the infobox states that the ship was ordered on 12 December 1915, but I couldn't find that date in the body of the article
 * I can't find it anywhere so deleted.
 * A dozen sailors died as the crew abandoned ship due to drowning and hypothermia --> " A dozen sailors died due to drowning and hypothermia as the crew abandoned ship"?
 * unless I missed it, I couldn't see the 2 x 2-pdrs mentioned in the body
 * same as above for the deck and gun shield armour figures
 * "File:HMS Raleigh at Pier D Vancouver 1921.jpg": this probably needs a US licence in addition to the current one used
 * Thanks for catching all these annoying little issues, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, Sturm, thanks for your efforts. A rather undignified end for such a ship. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Much the same happens to her sister HMS Effingham. Almost as if the class was cursed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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.