Talk:HMS Hurst Castle/GA1
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 00:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Lead
- I get that this is a super-short article, but two sentences for the lead is still a touch brief. Any way another couple sentences can be added?
- Good idea, but I could only add so much.
- Infobox
- The infobox says the beam was 33 ft. The prose says 36 feet 9 inches. Which is correct?
- Order date isn't cited anywhere
- Good catches on both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Referneces
- You use Colledge for the short citation, but the long citation makes it look like it should be Colledge & Warlow, unless Warlow was just and editor, which should be noted if that's the case.
- Construction and career
- I understand that there's a decent chance there's no answer to this one. The complement is stated to be 99 early in the article. However, 17 losses in the sinking + 102 survivors = 119 total on board. Do the sources indicate where the extra 20 people came from?
- No. Usually the proliferation of electronics and light AA guns was the cause of much overcrowding, but she was so new that I doubt that that's the case here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Image licensing looks fine, the refs all look reliable.
Overall, this is a tidy little article. A few minor things, but nothing glaring. It's short, but there's not much further to say that really sticks out to me. Placing on hold.Hog Farm Bacon 01:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)