Talk:HMS Assurance (1780)
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Pickersgill-Cunliffe in topic GA Review
 | HMS Assurance (1780) 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: February 29, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Assurance (1780)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Images appropriately licensed
- Link sister ship in the caption
- Done.
- Link launched in the lede, add link to ship class on first use
- Added link, I think the ship class is already linked where necessary
- Delete the inflation calculators; warships are capital costs, not consumer goods. 3 million pounds today might outfit a modern warships boats, but it's hugely wrong
- Done.
- Change the link for long gun to naval long gun
- Done.
- Clarify that these are smoothbores
- Done.
- Her name was a historical one of Royal Navy use, originating in 1605 awkward
- Rephrased.
- Fix the link to St Augustine
- Oops! Done.
- Clarify that the 1793 refit was to restore her as a frigate, not as a troopship
- Done.
@Sturmvogel 66: Thanks again! My responses are above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)