Talk:HMS Bonaventure (31)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 02:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Initial review

I plan to review this article. I will compile a list of issues. Please fix or argue your case for not fixing. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Review 1

Here are my comments. There will be a Review 2. Djmaschek (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Introduction, paragraph 2: "helped to sink and Italian torpedo boat" (and > an, the word "to" seems unnecessary.)
• Introduction, paragraph 2, last sentence: (Please give year of sinking.)
• Design and description: (Draught 16 ft 10 in (deep load) does not match infobox draught of 14 ft. Can standard load be added to the text?)
• Armament, fire control and sensors, and protection: (The Vickers Quad 0.5-inch are not listed in the infobox.)
• Armament, fire control and sensors, and protection: (Space needed between Type 128A and ASDIC.)

Review 2

GA class. The ship's career is very well written and no errors were found. I added years to a few dates. Djmaschek (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

Verifiable with no original research

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

(c) it contains no original research:

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Neutral

• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Stable

• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

Illustrated

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Overall

1. Well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated