Talk:HMS Stag (1812)

HMS Stag (1812) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 13, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Stag (1812)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 20:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sturmvogel 66: Hi, just a ping in case this has passed you by. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay. Without further ado:

Images properly licensed
link carronade in the infobox

Carronade is linked at first mention in the infobox

consider changing "After having undergone a refit" to "Having been refitted"

Done

Was all of the activity in the last two paragraphs in 1815?

Added an extra date to clarify that no, that's all 1814

That's fine, I think that I was just expecting a strict chronological account.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Transplanted? Perhaps "transferred" instead?

Done

Nicely done

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you! Have replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic