Talk:Battle of Dover Strait (1916)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. I have made a number of tweaks, but where I am unsure, or wish to make recommendations, I have listed these below. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

[edit]
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

[edit]
  • no disambig links according to the WP:Featured article tools;
  • no issues with ext links (no ext links);
  • alt text is present;
  • spot checks didn't reveal any copyright issues.

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • in the lead, "flotilla of British destroyers were sent to repel them" - this seems like a tense issue to me. I think it should be "flotilla of British destroyers was sent to repel them". Flotilla is singular, even though there are multiple destroyers;
  • a few more links could help readers, for instance terms such as "flotilla", "drifter", "destroyer", "division", "Dover Patrol" have specific meaning which the lay reader might not necessarily fully understand without a link;
  • "A class torpedo boats", I believe that this should be "A-class torpedo boats" per the way that "Tribal-class destroyers" is presented with the hyphen;
  • in the Battle section, I suggest wikilinking the word "allied" to Allies of World War I
  • in the Battle section, "destroyer division, Commander Oliphant of the Viking, failed to keep his squadron" (was it a division or squadron?);
  • in the Battle section, "but was struck with a torpedo" would probably sound better as "but was struck by a torpedo";
  • in the Aftermath section, there is some repetition here: "in addition to Flirt and the transport Queen. In addition to those vessels" (the word "addition" is the issue as it is used twice in quick succession, perhaps this could be reworded?);
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • No issues for GA, although if this article is going to be taken to A-class or FAC, I suggest trying to expand the reference base a little further if possible. Are there any reliable web links that could be consulted? Any more books that might mention the battle? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • "the commander of the Dover Patrol" - do we know the name of this officer? If so, it would be good to add it here;
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
  • No war stoppers, however, I think that the dates on the images should be tweaked. Currently they show the date that they were uploaded, but they should actually show the date they were taken. For instance on File:HMSNubian.jpg, I don't think that the date field should say "XavierGreen (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)", rather it should be "October 1916" or something similar. Additionally, in the source field, I suggest adding the author's name, publication year, publisher etc.;
  • not relevant to this review, however, I suggest tweaking the headings on "File:HMSNubian.jpg". Currently it has duplicate "Summary" and "Licencing" sections. There really only needs to be one of each. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Dover_Strait_(1916)/GA1&oldid=419528259"