Talk:HMS Ruby (1910)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead
 * Looks fine

Design and description
 * where the individual yards: suggest "where the individual shipyards"
 * Changed.
 * the Acorn class were a set,: suggest "the Acorn class were a fixed design," (partially because set is used earlier in the sentence)
 * Changed.

Construction and career
 * Not explicitly stated that the gemstone is the namesake, as specified in the infobox
 * True. Removed.
 * between 120 and 140 vessels were needing escort as they arrived or departed.: not clear where they were arriving/departing, presumably the UK?
 * Added.
 * protect the myriad of vessels passing through: again not clear, presumably Devonport?

Source checks
 * Doing some spotchecks of sourcing using the online references:
 * Cite 17 doesn't check out. The source is for the period mid to late 1915 and the page number given refers to Admiralty cables from mid-July, but is cited to support flotilla disposition at the start of the war. Perhaps you have linked to the wrong Monograph?
 * Good point. I have linked to the correct Monograph.
 * Cite 20 checks out OK
 * Cite 21 checks out OK
 * Cite 23 checks out OK
 * Cite 31 doesn't check out. It appears to be used to support a claim of shortage of destroyers in mid-1917 but Monograph 21 appears to cover the period 1914–1915. Perhaps you have linked to the wrong Monograph?
 * Good point. The shortage had not abated by 1917, but it is not explicit. I have removed the statement and updated the reference.
 * Cite 33 checks out OK
 * Also the link for Monograph 6 doesn't work
 * Good spot. Amended.

Other stuff
 * Image tag is OK
 * One dupe link: battleships
 * Removed.

, apologies for the length of time it has taken for me to come back to this, but I have looked at this. Minor issues mostly, the source checks are the most serious. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Thank you for taking the time to review this, and particularly for your notes on the sources. I have updated the article. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking all good here, so passing as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. simongraham (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)