Talk:HMS Tourmaline (1919)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Neopeius (talk · contribs) 18:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nicely done! I can't check the citations directly as I have none of these books, but the location of the citations looks good, and I know Jane's and Conway's so I can surmise the information is correct. Structure matches other naval ships, so no criticism there. Just a few language suggestions:

Lede

• "HMS Tourmaline was an S-class destroyer which" | Comma after "destroyer"

• "Tourmaline was one of the destroyers ordered from Thornycroft" | "three" instead of "the"

• "with more powerful geared turbines than the majority of the class and design changes like a raised forecastle that improved seakeeping." | How about "with more powerful geared turbines than the majority of the class as well as design changes that improved seakeeping."

• "With the signing of the London Naval Treaty, the Royal Navy needed to retire some destroyers to meet the tonnage requirement and Tourmaline was chosen for retirement." | How about "The London Naval Treaty, signed 1930, required the retirement of some destroyers.."

• "Thus, after just over ten years service, the destroyer was decommissioned on 28 November 1931 and scrapped." | How about ""The destroyer was decommissioned on 28 November 1931 after 12 years of service and scrapped." (12 years isn't a long time, but it isn't excessively short, either)

Service

• "The fleet was soon in action in support the Volunteer Army" | "in support of the Volunteer Army"

• "It was while on this service that the ship..." | "While on this service, the ship..."

• "On 22 April 1930, the London Naval Treaty was signed which limited" | comma after signed

@Simongraham: That's it! :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Thank you for a really helpful review. All the amendments are done. simongraham (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Simongraham: My pleasure! You can always ping me for a review. By the way (and this is in no way an expectation of tit for tat), if you want to take a gander at SOLRAD 4 and/or SOLRAD 4B (largely identical articles), I'd be obliged! --Neopeius (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)