Talk:Briton-class corvette

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Briton class corvette/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SimonTrew (talk · contribs) 15:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll start the review shortly. At a very first pass it seems very well written and knowedgable, with good links and references; both internally to other Wikipedia pages and externally. My comments, thus, are likely to be very nit picky. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cursory opening comments:

Refs to Lyon and Winfield, via {{winfield}}. They cannot ALL be on p. 288 can they? I have added a harvref into {{winfield}} and probably should make it WInfield & Lyon, or Lyon & Winfield, but I find it a bit odd that a whole stack of references are on the same page.

To that end, more seriously there are only actually four references in the article: Winfield, Ballard, Chesneau & Kolesnik and Gardiner. There is no problem with that as such, but my slight worry is that it may seem like the article is very well referenced when in fact there are just four references. I hope by putting it into Harvnb form that makes it clearer.

All the refs to Lyon and Winfield are indeed to the same page as that has the most reliable info on the ships' characteristics. They're covering a large number of ships in thir book, so each class has only a page or less. I'll change the Gardiner ref to Chesneau & Kolesnik as it should have been.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What's going on with this? It's been nearly three weeks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since the 18th, so I'll put this back in the queue. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Briton class corvette/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Bushranger (talk · contribs) 07:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Very nice work here on some rather obscure ships. Just a few niggling things keeping this from passing:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Nits picked:

   • "...all three ships only served...", suggest "all three ships of the class..."
   • "during their brief lives"; suggest "brief service lives"
   • "...the Director of Naval Construction", suggest "of the Admiralty" or "the Admiralty's..."
     • I think this one's OK, actually.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
   • "...speed over 13 knots"..., I think "of" shoud be in there?
     • No, they were faster 13 knots.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
   • "They were poor sailors", suggest "the ships were" as some readers could presume the ship's crew was being referred to somehow.
   • "Her crew was relieved in 1884 and the ship remained on station...[until] 1887", was Briton crewless at this time, laid up at anchor? Or was another crew put aboard?
   • "followed her sisters after a two year delay...", accurate but looks slightly awkward. Perhaps "The construction of Thetis..."?
   • "China Station" should be wikilinked (are there pages for any of the other Stations?)
     • Added and all are linked in the lede. All other comments addressed except as noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is well-referenced to reputable sources and avoids OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article provides a good overview of the class, and the descriptions of each ship are suitable leadins to their own articles, without needless digression.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is presented neutrally and fairly.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article does not appear to be involved in any editing disputes.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Article lacks images; I assume this is because there are simply no suitable free-use images that could be provided?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As I said, there's just a few minor things that need addressing here, so I'm putting this on hold until they can be tweaked. The Bushranger _{One ping only} - 07:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

   Nice work. Pass! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)