Talk:HMS Swordfish (1916)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
From an initial read it looks good so, a few very minor points:
 * There are no citation errors and external links check out (no action required);
 * There is a clarification needed tag (not sure it really is an issue though - I would probably just remove it as nothing has been added on the talk page to say what the issue was); ✅
 * One dablink (12-pounder) that needs to be fixed;✅
 * Not too keen on the punctuation in the fol sentence in the lead: "The Swordfish proved to be slower than designed and unstable while surfacing; she was modified as a anti-submarine patrol vessel in 1917." Could it possibly be reworded? For instance: "The Swordfish proved to be slower than designed and unstable while surfacing, and consequently she was modified as a anti-submarine patrol vessel in 1917." Or something similar? ✅

More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also would it be a good idea to put a hat note to HMS S1 (1914) so that readers don't get confused with that sub? I'll admit it confused me for a bit at least. Anotherclown (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC) ✅

The exact types of 3-inch and 12-pounder guns isn't known; I've added notes to say as much. I liked your suggestion about the sentence in the lead. Added hat note; does it clarify things enough?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Overall another good article. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)