Talk:Thames-class frigate/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 04:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look at this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead

 * Suggest adding the point that these frigates served in the Royal Navy. Perhaps ...class of eight ships of the Royal Navy that was based... ✅
 * To help put the era of the ships in context suggest ...against the Napoleon's expected invasion of Britain. (with a link on Napoleon). ✅

Design and construction

 * shouldn't Thames class be hyphenated throughout the text, as per the title of the article? Same would apply to Richmond class presumably? I'm open to another opinion here but I based when to use a hyphen or not off the Iowa-class battleship article. It uses hyphens when the class and type of ship are noted e.g. "Essex-class aircraft carriers" but removes the hyphen when more broadly mentioning a class e.g. "the Japanese Kongō class".
 * OK, I get the reasoning there. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Suggest ...32-gun frigate that served with the Royal Navy from 1756. The 1756 relates to when the class was designed; to say what you suggest would actually be incorrect because the first ships of the class weren't launched until 1757.
 * It may already be obvious, but I just want to get across to readers early on that this design was for the RN. Maybe The Richmond design was brought back for the Royal Navy... Zawed (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC) ✅


 * The Richmond design was brought back...: Suggest adding the year in which the class was brought back. ✅
 * The word design/designs is used quite a lot in the first paragraph; suggest altering a few to avoid this repetition. For example ...original design plans blueprints of the Richmond class... ✅
 * suggest ...deficiencies created with the smaller classes of vessels such... ✅
 * Is it known who the naval architect was that modernised the original design? - no name is associated with the class apart from Bately. Have to assume that because the changes to the design were only minimal he was still credited with it.
 * Can conversions for the recited knots be provided? ✅

Pallas

 * At the start of the 2nd para, better add the year. ✅
 * participating under him in the initial stages: not clear who "him" is here ✅

Circe

 * What's a "cutting out expedition"? - A naval boarding; already linked in paragraph one of Pallas
 * fifty-six casualties: numerals for large numbers? ❌ my rule is to write out numbers below triple digits, if there's a standard Wikipedia rule for this I'm not aware of it

Thames

 * As above in respect of numerals for large numbers ❌ per previous response
 * suggest heights of the island, inducing the its governor ✅

Throughout the discussion of the various ships of the class, there are a few instances where their commander is mentioned by rank e.g. Captain Smith, after already being introduced in full with the rank, which isn't necessary. ✅

Other stuff

 * Image tag for existing image looks OK
 * Given the article length, it would be nice to have another image - there is one on the Pallas article that could be used ✅ frustrating that there aren't more available images of the ships!
 * No dupe links

That's it for me. Will check back in a few days. Zawed (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I've responded to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good so passing as GA as I consider that it meets the relevant criteria. Zawed (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)