Talk:HMS Carysfort (1914)

HMS Carysfort (1914) 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: April 1, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

GA Review

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Carysfort (1914)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll have this to you soon. JAGUAR 11:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments

I think that the lead could be expanded somewhat to summarise the article. The body of the article is quite comprehensive, so adding some details about its career might be possible
- See how it suits now.
The lead doesn't mention when or where she was commissioned
- Normally I only orientate the reader to the decade in which a ship was built and leave the rest for the main body. But since people might not actually know when WWI was, I've added the year.
"For anti-aircraft defence, she was fitted with one QF 6-pounder 57 mm (2.2 in) Hotchkiss gun. The ship also mounted two twin, above-water, mounts for 21 in (533 mm) torpedos" - any reason why metric is before imperial in the first instance? Also, isn't torpedoes the correct plural?
"The walls of their conning tower were 6 inches thick" - convert to millimetres
- Already done of first use.
"was replaced by a Ordnance QF 3-pounder 47 mm (1.9 in)" - metric is mentioned before imperial here. I'm fine with it but I was wondering if it was an oversight?
"in occupied Belgium" - link German occupation of Belgium during World War I
- Good idea.
No dead links

Those were all of the minor issues I could bring up. But overall, it's a well written and comprehensive article. JAGUAR 11:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. Let me know if any issues still remain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for addressing them! With all of those out of the way, this meets the GA criteria now.

JAGUAR 20:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic