Talk:HMS Splendid (P228)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 15:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The nominators have done such good work preparing this series of articles, I'll just go ahead and review them all. Reviews should be up in the next few days. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I've copyedited the article a bit, and now it's at a good prose standard. It complies with all the relevant MoS sections, with one exception: the fact that Splendid was the most successful WWII British submarine in total tonnage sunk (appropriately mentioned and cited in the body) is quite significant and should be mentioned in the lead section.
 * Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I'll have to AGF on the offline book sources, but online sources appear to confirm the substance of the article. Uboat.net isn't necessarily a reliable source, but it claims that its details come from the British National Archives, and I guess I'm willing to accept that.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article seems to cover all the major aspects of the topic (design, construction, service history), and doesn't get lost in any excessive detail. It's a minor detail and might seem obvious, but I wish the text that discusses the boat's name pointed out that all the S-class subs were given names that begin with 'S'.
 * It's a common naming practice, especially for the RN. See Ship class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The tone is appropriately neutral.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All the images are relevant and appear to have valid licenses. I've restored an image that was commented out.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Only a couple of details, and this one will be ready for promotion! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With the lead section updated, and given the discussion at the other S-Class subs, I retract my comment about 'S'-names, and this article is promoted! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With the lead section updated, and given the discussion at the other S-Class subs, I retract my comment about 'S'-names, and this article is promoted! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)