Talk:Ralph Waldo Christie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, sorry for delay between claiming this for review and actually getting down to it... I see in that time the lead has expanded significantly -- clearly you've been through enough of these things with me to know that it's the first thing I would've asked for, so nice pre-emptive strike... ;-)

Okay, looks pretty good, as usual; a few things (again as usual)...

• Lead says he retired as Vice Admiral but infobox says Rear Admiral and body of article only goes that far as well.
  •  Done This always confuses me. It was called tombstone promotion. When a decorated officer retired, he was advanced to the next rank. He gave him a higher pension in retirement. It meant most to captains, who became admirals on retirement. Depending on the source, you can get different ranks. Changed to vice admiral. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    • As long as there's an explanation -- I won't even insist that it be a rational one... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• ...Christie as tactical commander in the endeavor -- not sure, is "the endeavor" enforcing the Neutrality Patrol, or the possible assignment of US-built subs to Britain, or both? I'd have assume the first-mentioned since the other thing seemed just a proposal (in which case it might be a bit of a dead herring, as Baldrick would say, at this point); precisely what Christie was in charge of should be made clear.
  •  Done
    • So it was that -- glad I asked...! Cheers,Ian Rose (talk)
• ...he made capital ships the prime targets, rather than have his boats focus on shipping -- can we more precisely define what we mean by "shipping" here, e.g. "transports"? Just sounds a bit odd differentiating such a general term from "capital ships".
  •  Done Changed to merchant shipping. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's the term I was looking for, not transports -- mental blank... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing more we can add to post-war section? Just not much there compared to preceding detail -- wouldn't expect that much of course but every bit helps, for more balance. No "legacy" type stuff, like influence on subsequent operations or technology?
  • I'm guessing the dash is done in this department... That's okay, happy to pass -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)