Talk:Thames-class frigate/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Zawed in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 04:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I will take a look at this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • Suggest adding the point that these frigates served in the Royal Navy. Perhaps ...class of eight ships of the Royal Navy that was based...   Done
  • To help put the era of the ships in context suggest ...against the Napoleon's expected invasion of Britain. (with a link on Napoleon).   Done

Design and construction

edit
  • shouldn't Thames class be hyphenated throughout the text, as per the title of the article? Same would apply to Richmond class presumably?   Not done I'm open to another opinion here but I based when to use a hyphen or not off the Iowa-class battleship article. It uses hyphens when the class and type of ship are noted e.g. "Essex-class aircraft carriers" but removes the hyphen when more broadly mentioning a class e.g. "the Japanese Kongō class".
  • OK, I get the reasoning there. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Suggest ...32-gun frigate that served with the Royal Navy from 1756.   Not done The 1756 relates to when the class was designed; to say what you suggest would actually be incorrect because the first ships of the class weren't launched until 1757.
  • It may already be obvious, but I just want to get across to readers early on that this design was for the RN. Maybe The Richmond design was brought back for the Royal Navy... Zawed (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)   DoneReply
  • The Richmond design was brought back...: Suggest adding the year in which the class was brought back.   Done
  • The word design/designs is used quite a lot in the first paragraph; suggest altering a few to avoid this repetition. For example ...original design plans blueprints of the Richmond class...   Done
  • suggest ...deficiencies created with the smaller classes of vessels such...   Done
  • Is it known who the naval architect was that modernised the original design? - no name is associated with the class apart from Bately. Have to assume that because the changes to the design were only minimal he was still credited with it.
  • Can conversions for the recited knots be provided?   Done

Pallas

edit
  • At the start of the 2nd para, better add the year.   Done
  • participating under him in the initial stages: not clear who "him" is here   Done

Circe

edit
  • What's a "cutting out expedition"? - A naval boarding; already linked in paragraph one of Pallas
  • fifty-six casualties: numerals for large numbers?   Not done my rule is to write out numbers below triple digits, if there's a standard Wikipedia rule for this I'm not aware of it

Thames

edit
  • As above in respect of numerals for large numbers   Not done per previous response
  • suggest heights of the island, inducing the its governor   Done

Throughout the discussion of the various ships of the class, there are a few instances where their commander is mentioned by rank e.g. Captain Smith, after already being introduced in full with the rank, which isn't necessary.   Done

Citations

edit
  • In the Winfield refs, a hyphen is used in the year range instead of a proper dash (which is used in the ref section for the Winfield refs). Ditto for the page ranges.   Done hopefully I've caught them all!
  • In cite 10, there looks like a pg no. is missing - don't think so? "Wareham, The Frigate Captains, pp. 15–6."
  • Should that be pp. 15–16? Zawed (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)   DoneReply

Other stuff

edit
  • Image tag for existing image looks OK
  • Given the article length, it would be nice to have another image - there is one on the Pallas article that could be used   Done frustrating that there aren't more available images of the ships!
  • No dupe links

That's it for me. Will check back in a few days. Zawed (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Zawed: Thanks for the review, I've responded to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Looks good so passing as GA as I consider that it meets the relevant criteria. Zawed (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply