Talk:HMS Stratagem/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.
 * 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 also only names one of Strategem's five different commanders listed in the Uboat.net source; they should all be listed if any is going to be.
 * Good point, removed. Naming all the ships in a class with the same letter is a common naming practice, especially for the RN. See Ship class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 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.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Only one tiny detail, and this one will be ready for promotion! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough removing the listed commander; the article would be more thorough if it discussed all of her commanders rather than none, but it doesn't appear that any were notable, so I think it works for GA. I retract my request for a comment about 'S'-names, so this article is promoted to GA!
 * Fair enough removing the listed commander; the article would be more thorough if it discussed all of her commanders rather than none, but it doesn't appear that any were notable, so I think it works for GA. I retract my request for a comment about 'S'-names, so this article is promoted to GA!