Talk:HMS Sturdy (1919)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Thank you for this very helpful review. I have made the changes, and taken the advantage to expand the interwar service too. Please tell me if there is anything else you would like to take a look at. simongraham (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Image properly licensed
 * You know that I'm fussy about infoboxes and like for them to be as short as is reasonable. All measurements except long tons and knots should be abbreviated. Link shp and long tons. Add |ship power= and move the boilers and power figures from the propulsion field. Use asterisks to create a list for them. Add number of shafts to the propulsion field and delete the manufacturer. Delete the names of the mountings and the guns as excessive detail (best covered in the main body (although I generally don't bother with the name of the mounts at all)). Tell the reader the number of guns or tubes on each mount for each weapon like you did for the 2 pdrs. Add an Imperial conversion for 40 mm both in the infobox and the main body.
 * These are all excellent points. I have simplified the whole box.
 * Don't think we need to know the names of the audience for the naval review in the lede
 * Removed.
 * put quote marks around pom-pom
 * Added.
 * Were the planned torpedo tubes in fixed or rotating mounts?
 * Clarified.
 * Do you know when Sturdy was assigned to Ireland?
 * I have expanded this section based on contemporary newspaper articles.
 * front of the George V and Queen Mary Excess "the"
 * Removed.
 * The destroyer was one of the escorts for Convoy HX 79 which, on 19 October, suffered heavily under U-boat wolfpack, losing twelve ships in a torpedo attack that lasted six hours. Simplify this
 * I have split the sentence.
 * Link centerline, superstructure
 * Done for centreline. I feel superstructure is not a helpful link, not least because the article is almost without references.
 * I don't care about the quality of the linked article so long as the concept or thing is reasonably well explained. I don't think the word is much used by ordinary readers and needs to be linked so the reader can look it up if they desire.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to say this to such an experienced and respected reviewer, but I cannot a requirement for links in the GA criteria. However, as per WP:OWN, I am very happy for you to add the link if you feel it would enhance the article. simongraham (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't one explicitly, but it's really part of prose, especially for something so jargon laden as nautical history. You and I may know what a yard number, superstructure or topgallant royal is, but the average reader needs a link. That said I do tend to err on the side of the more links, the merrier, because I think that editors tend to think that their readers are as well read as they are. YMMV.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Conways is actually an anthology with Antony Preston writing the RN chapter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good spot. I have fixed this.