Talk:HMS Staunch (1910)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to your comments. simongraham (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• While the existing photo of Staunch is probably copyright-free, it's lacking in publishing data to determine if it is or isn't.
• Don't settle for whatever's on Commons if it's got crappy sourcing or is bad quality. Especially for British ships where the Imperial War Museum's photograph section is a gold-mine of copyright-free images. I've replaced the original photo with one from their collection that is copyright free, no matter what their webpage claims. You can use the upload I just did as a model for uploads of your own and feel free to ping me if you like me to walk you through the process in the future.
  • Thank you. That is an excellent find. I am not experienced in finding and uploading images to Wikimedia so that is very helpful.
• The fate field in the infobox needs a date
  • Added.
• You've got a bit more information in the first para of the design section than I think is really necessary. Much of it is better placed in the class article. I generally like to use a single sentence saying that the X class ships were an improved version of the preceding class, with a reason why. Just a suggestion here though.
  • That is a good point. I feel that the fact that these destroyers were such an importance step in the development of steam turbines and class standardisation that both these are worthy of mention, but I have edited the whole paragraph down a bit.
    • I'd suggest moving the bit about standarizing the designs of the Acorns down to the construction paragraph.
      • Moved.
• Parsons supplied a complex of seven turbines, a high-pressure and two low pressure for high speed, two turbines for cruising and two for running astern, driving three shafts. The high-pressure turbine drove the centre shaft, the remainder being distributed amongst two wing-shafts. This is a bit complicated and can stand to be simplified, IMO. I think that it's important to say that this is a single turbine set, with multiple turbines in separate casings (as the technology improved, the turbines would gradually be consolidated into a single casing). Probably worth mentioning that the turbines were [[Direct-drive mechanism|direct-drive]] as well.
  • These are very good points. As well as consolidating and simplifying the sentences, I have added the point about the turbine set and the wikilink.
• The proportions of the funnels isn't really notable. You could say that the boilers exhausted their combustion gases through three funnels or somesuch.
  • Removed.
• Link shaft horsepower (link=on), knots (link=in)
  • Added.
    • FYI, knots are never abbreviated and you changed knots to abbr=in rather than link=in
      • Oops. Fixed.
• year number? I think you mean yard number!
  • Yes. Corrected.
• The ship was fifth in navy service given the name staunch, which had been first used in 1797 awkward
  • I have split the sentence. Please tell me if this is insufficient.
    • I don't really see any importance to when the first Staunch was named, but that's just me. I think that your previous wording was better if you decide to keep it. But either way, be sure to add 'the' before 'fifth'
      • I am happy to remove the reference to the first naming; I have also added the definite article.
• practice cruise training
  • Amended.
• January 1915 found the vessel attached the Grand Fleet. "to" and which DD flotilla?
  • Added.
• Have you checked Jellicoe's history of the Grand Fleet for any mentions of Staunch? His coverage of the little boys like Staunch isn't great, but...
  • Yes. Unfortunately I could find nothing extra of note.
• Suggest combining these two sentences: It was not until 9 January 1916 that the destroyer was able to approach one of the hulks that lay offshore and help the evacuation.[27] The ship succeeded in saving the majority of a battalion of the Worcestershire Regiment
  • Combined.
    • I think that this one still needs work. The 'but' is unnecessary so I'd suggest something on these lines: destroyer was able to approach one of the hulks that lay offshore and was able to save the majority of a battalion of the Worcestershire Regiment.
      • I have amended it to the text you suggest.
• As should these: He launched torpedoes at M15 and Staunch.[30][31] Both ships sank, and eight sailors aboard Staunch were killed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Consolidated with the final sentence to make two out of three.

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for your thorough review. I believe all the changes have been made. simongraham (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• few minor issues remain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Thank you. I believe I have made the amendments. simongraham (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)