Talk:HMS Raleigh (1919)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 09:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I will post a review shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments: G'day, Sturm, nice work. I have a few relatively minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• please add a citation at the end of the paragraph ending with "On 3 August, Pakenham transferred his flag to the light cruiser HMS Calcutta and Raleigh became a private ship."
• and dismissed their ship --> "dismissed from their ship"?
  • For some undoubtedly archaic reason, the formal verdict doesn't use "from".
• should there be a full bibliographic entry for the Engineering, 24 September 1920 source?
  • Too many "Engineerings" to figure out which one was meant.
• in the References, Raven is out of order (alphabetically)
• the infobox states that the ship was ordered on 12 December 1915, but I couldn't find that date in the body of the article
  • I can't find it anywhere so deleted.
• A dozen sailors died as the crew abandoned ship due to drowning and hypothermia --> " A dozen sailors died due to drowning and hypothermia as the crew abandoned ship"?
• unless I missed it, I couldn't see the 2 x 2-pdrs mentioned in the body
• same as above for the deck and gun shield armour figures
• "File:HMS Raleigh at Pier D Vancouver 1921.jpg": this probably needs a US licence in addition to the current one used
  • Thanks for catching all these annoying little issues, Rupert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    • No worries, Sturm, thanks for your efforts. A rather undignified end for such a ship. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Much the same happens to her sister Effingham. Almost as if the class was cursed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: Y

a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: Y

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

c. it contains no original research; and

d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: Y

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.