Talk:HMS Euphrates (1813)

Latest comment: 4 months ago by Pickersgill-Cunliffe in topic 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.


GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Euphrates (1813)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply


Preamble from Vami edit

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. My name is Vami, and I will be your reviewer. During this review I may make small edits such as spelling corrections, but I will only suggest substantive content changes in comments here. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. As my comments are addressed or rebutted, I will cross them out, and only my comments.

If I have demonstrated incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 16:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Prose review edit

  • [...] and so more were needed to be built. Seems to me redundant.
  • Removed.
  • [...] Scamander class was one of those put into construction to fill this need. "one of those"? One of those what? I think some specificity or reduction is required here.
  • Removed.
  • As such Alpheus's class [...] whomst
  • Not sure what you mean here?
  • Alpheus isn't a name used before in the article; is this a ghost from a previous article? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Haha I didn't even catch that when reading it through again! Yes, from a previous article for a ship of the class.
  • [...] a woman at Corfu. Suggest "on" Corfu, considering it's an island rather than a city.
  • Changed.
  • Ten days after receiving the first news of Exmouth [...] Suggest "first despatch", as "of Exmouth" here makes him sound like an event unto himself.
  • Reworded.

GA progress edit

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
@Vami IV: Hi, thanks for reviewing this! I've responded above, with one unactioned point that I've queried. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Vami IV: Responded above...oops! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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.