Talk:HMS Ruby (1910)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• Looks fine

Design and description

• where the individual yards: suggest "where the individual shipyards"
  • Changed.
• the Acorn class were a set,: suggest "the Acorn class were a fixed design," (partially because set is used earlier in the sentence)
  • Changed.

Construction and career

• Not explicitly stated that the gemstone is the namesake, as specified in the infobox
  • True. Removed.
• between 120 and 140 vessels were needing escort as they arrived or departed.: not clear where they were arriving/departing, presumably the UK?
  • Added.
• protect the myriad of vessels passing through: again not clear, presumably Devonport?

Source checks

• Doing some spotchecks of sourcing using the online references:
• Cite 17 doesn't check out. The source is for the period mid to late 1915 and the page number given refers to Admiralty cables from mid-July, but is cited to support flotilla disposition at the start of the war. Perhaps you have linked to the wrong Monograph?
  • Good point. I have linked to the correct Monograph.
• Cite 20 checks out OK
• Cite 21 checks out OK
• Cite 23 checks out OK
• Cite 31 doesn't check out. It appears to be used to support a claim of shortage of destroyers in mid-1917 but Monograph 21 appears to cover the period 1914–1915. Perhaps you have linked to the wrong Monograph?
  • Good point. The shortage had not abated by 1917, but it is not explicit. I have removed the statement and updated the reference.
• Cite 33 checks out OK
• Also the link for Monograph 6 doesn't work
  • Good spot. Amended.

Other stuff

• Image tag is OK
• One dupe link: battleships
  • Removed.

Simongraham, apologies for the length of time it has taken for me to come back to this, but I have looked at this. Minor issues mostly, the source checks are the most serious. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zawed: Not a problem. Thank you for taking the time to review this, and particularly for your notes on the sources. I have updated the article. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking all good here, so passing as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thank you. simongraham (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.