Talk:HMS Hurricane (H06)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 03:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
• Linkrot: no external links [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: Image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues [6] (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Missing word and minor prose suggestion here: "HMS Hurricane was an H-class destroyer originally ordered by the Brazilian Navy with the name Japarua in the late 1930s, but was bought by the Royal Navy after the beginning of World War II in September 1939 and later renamed." Consider: "HMS Hurricane was an H-class destroyer that had originally been ordered by the Brazilian Navy in the late 1930s with the name Japarua, but was bought by the Royal Navy after the beginning of World War II in September 1939 and later renamed."
  • Not sure about the punctuation here: "...a German submarine on Christmas Eve, 1943, and had...", would it be more correct as: "...a German submarine on Christmas Eve 1943, and had..."?
  • Tense here: "...suffered over the last few months...", consider instead: "...suffered over the previous few months..."

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • Consistent citation style used throughout.
  • No issues with OR.
  • One issue:
    • "Rohwer, p. 294" appears as a short citation (#10), however there is no corresponding long citation in the References section. Can this be added?

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points are covered without going into undue detail.
  • More context could be added here: "The ship was laid down on 3 June 1938 and she was purchased by the British on 5 September 1939 and renamed HMS Hurricane." Why? Actually you explain this in the lead, and it is obvious to anyone that has read the article; however, I think you probably should spell it out. Consider: "The ship was laid down on 3 June 1938 and was purchased by the British on 5 September 1939 after the beginning of World War II. She was subsequently renamed HMS Hurricane." (or something similar).
  • The section on the ship's service is fairly brief, although I imagine this is reflective of the lack of information available. Currently two years of operational service is covered in two sentences: "The ship was repaired and returned to service in January 1942 as flagship of Escort Group B1 assigned to the Mid-Ocean Escort Force. Hurricane remained as the flagship for the next two years." Is anything more available or is this it? If so I will strike this comment.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues here.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • All recent edits look constructive.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Image used is in the public domain and seems appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Just a few points to deal with / discuss, otherwise it looks quite good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I like your wording better. Added Rohwer to refs. Hurricane had a pretty bland existence after being repaired, not even damaging a U-boat or participating in any notable convoy battles. [7] has a good precis of her career. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy with that, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)