Talk:HMS Acasta (H09)
 | HMS Acasta (H09) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 27, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Acasta (H09) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
Untitled
editThe General Characteristics Armament seems to describe late-war conversions of other members of the A-class. HMS Acasta, sunk in 1940 would not have carried Hedgehog, introduced in 1942. Probably the armament in 1940 would be the same as for HMS Ardent.96.54.53.165 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
March missing from the Bibliography
editMarch (presumably his British Destroyers 1892–1953) is cited in the article but not listed in the bibliography.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ooops, thanks for letting me know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think the same issue is in some of the other A-class destroyer articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
British Standard Destroyers of the 1930s - extensive use as a reference
editDoes this book, only a single page really contain all the cite details as per this article? I'm not saying it's false but it's not clear which sentences are actually mentioned and cited, so I've made the assumption the reference at the end of the paragraph does this - but then there is an awful lot cited to just page 17 of this book. Surely there are other numerous records (Official War History, etc.) which can be cited in more depth to qualify this is a GA? At the moment, I wouldn't have the normal confidence in GA reading this as an accurate account of it's war history which is to be expected for a GA. Aeonx (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- English covers each destroyer's history in a few pages, although the peacetime portion is often very sparse as there's often not much notable activity happening then. The citation covers the entire paragraph; if I'd used other sources I'd have listed them. The GA criteria is: "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)