Talk:HM Armed Smack Inverlyon/GA1

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article.

The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here.

I think this is an excellent article on such an unusual topic. When I first saw it I was sceptical that an article on a fishing smack (even one that operated as a Q Ship), could have enough interesting information to sustain it, but I'm very impressed with this article and think it could well be a model for small warship pages.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Generally very good prose, I have a couple of suggestions however.
 * "one of the fishing vessels was actually Inverlyon." - I'd say "one of the fishing vessels was the disguised Inverlyon." instead. I'd also try and break the sentence in which this clause appears into two for clarity. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed
 * "After waiting until the right moment," - A little redundant, I suggest removing or rephrasing this.
 * I reworded this and the preceding sentence to convey that there was some waiting involved. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "the second destroying" - the second what? burst? be more specific
 * Clarified that is was the second shot (of the three shots mentioned) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * It might be better to incorporate Note 4 into the text: it's relevant and would flesh out the final paragraph.
 * Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the considered review, Jacky. I think I've addressed all of your concerns with the article. Benea posted a note on the talk page with some additional information about Inverlyon, and I have incorporated some of that already. (I've asked for clarification on the page numbers, which I will add to the notes, and on whether the weapon was only a 6-pounder—contradicting the Perkins source—or if the weapon was upgraded later.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, its a very nice article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)