Talk:USS Dunderberg/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk · contribs) 23:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Lede can't be made any longer?
  • I added a little, what else do you think would be appropriate?
• Anyway to cut down the "Design, description and construction" section into three parts. Seems way too big right now.
  • This ship had such a convoluted design and construction history that it doesn't fit my normal layout. There's the contractual requirements, all the damn changes and the problems that Webb suffered in trying to get her built. If she'd actually seen US service things would be much simpler as I could focus on how she was completed, but since she wasn't I have little choice other than to go through the whole thing.
• Nothing more about Prussian interest, or for that matter any other countries'?
  • No, just what's in the text.
• No way to find something to replace the DANFS? Google translate, perhaps?
  • It's only used to cite the meaning of her name.
• Possibly change "Rochambeau's shallow draft meant that she and the armored corvette Thétis were ordered" to "Rochambeau's shallow draft meant that she and the armored corvette Thétis could..."
  • They were ordered to recon the estuary so I think that that's the better phrasing.
• Just out of curiosity, were both the Roberts pieces written in the same issue of Warship International? Seems a tad strange.
  • I guess it was a theme issue.
• "The ship never fired her guns at a Prussian ship and was decommissioned after the end of the war." to "The ship saw no action and was decommissioned after the war".
  • Done.

All for now, good job. Buggie111 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Passed. Buggie111 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)