Talk:HMS Stork (1916)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Stork (1916)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and review this article. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 17:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

• lowercase "broken up" PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 18:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Does it matter if the length listed is between perpendiculars or overall, or both?
  • It now has both for completeness.
• The infobox states the draught is "8 ft 5 in" while the body states it is "8 ft 6 in". Which is correct?
  • Probably both and different points in the hull, but the mean is 9 ft according to the source. Amended.

Lead

• Hyphenate "R class" in the second sentence
  • Done.
• Same for "M class"
  • Done.
• Insert a comma after "torpedo boats"
  • Done.
• Start a new paragraph at "After the armistice that ended the war"
  • Done.
• Remove "However"
  • Done.

Design and development

Paragraph 1

• Hyphenate "M class"
  • Done.

Paragraph 2

• Comments about the measurements themselves are in the infobox commentary section
  • I have revisited the numbers in this paragraph and ensured that they are consistent with the sources.
• Lowercase "Displacement" and add "Its" before it
  • Amended.

Paragraph 3

• All good PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 18:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Construction and career

Paragraph 1

• All good

Paragraph 2

• Add a comma between "hits were reported" and "but the German"
  • Done.
• Add a comma between "sunk by Sylph" and "and SS Cito"
  • Done.

Paragraph 3

• All good

Paragraph 4

• All good

Paragraph 5

• Do we have a date the break up was completed? PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 18:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately not in the sources.

Pennant numbers

• All good

References and sources

• All sources are appropriate and are all used
• Since they have page numbers attached to them, is it possible to move "Dunkirk War Memorial: Naval Arrangements", "Allied Dead at Ostend: Monument Unveiled", "News in Brief", and "Shore Defence Practice on the Thames" into the bibliography section, as the article by Naval Staff Monographs already is?
  • My reasoning is that the items are only a page long, as the sections in The Navy List are.
• Change "pp" (pages) to "p" (page) in reference 5 (Naval Staff Monograph No. 35 1939, pp. 13.)
  • Done.
• Navbar and categories are good PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 18:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Images

• HMS Rob Roy (1916) IWM SP 1347.jpg Y properly licensed and appropriate caption, but do we know the second ship's name? I assume that an image of a sister ship is used as there is no free image (or any image) of the Stork? PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 17:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • That is right. There is no known free image of Stork I have access to, but, as the second ship is unknown, it may be Stork in the background. simongraham (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Overall

• No war edits
• Focused on topic
• Broad in coverage
• Layout is good
• Neutral POV PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 18:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Final remarks

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Simongraham: Very good job! Just some grammar checks and some questions about the material and I'll go ahead and pass this article. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 18:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13: Thank you for such a thorough review and your kind comments. Please see my comments above and tell me if I missed anything. simongraham (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Everything has been addressed. Congrats! I'll now pass this article. PizzaKing13 (Hablame) 20:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

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.