Talk:HMS Boreas (H77)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CrowzRSA (talk · contribs) 18:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Cleaned up, looks fine now.

Description

• Why is millimeter spelled out sometimes but othertimes abbreviated? ("Boreas had two 40-millimetre (1.6 in) QF 2-pounder Mk II AA guns" vs. "quadruple torpedo tube mounts for 21-inch (533 mm) torpedoes"). Shouldn't it be abbreviated to maintain consistency with the rest of the article?
  • The conversion template always abbreviates the second unit.
• "The ship was fitted with a Type 119 ASDIC set to detect submarines by reflections from sound waves beamed into the water." this sounds odd to me. perhaps reword to "The ship was fitted with a Type 119 ASDIC set to detect submarines by sound wave reflections beamed into the water."
  • How can you beam a reflection into the water?
    • ...Regardless its really the word "from" that reads badly. "of" sounds much better than "from".
      • See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• You are inconsistent with the anti aircraft abbreviation as well. The line "By October 1940, the ship's anti-aircraft armament was increased when the rear set of torpedo tubes was replaced by a 3-inch (76.2 mm) (12-pounder) AA gun and 'Y' gun was removed to compensate for the additional depth charges added." contains both the word and abbreviation.
  • Done.

Construction and service

• Should £221,156 not be converted to American dollars?
  • It's a capital cost and really can't be converted into a meaningful figure using price indexes and the like.
• "Her service in the Mediterranean was uneventful until shortly before she returned home when Boreas evacuated civilians at the start of the Spanish Civil War in July 1936 before beginning a refit at Portsmouth that lasted until 26 September." This sentence needs to be broken up.
  • Agreed.
• Shouldn't Greek Navy be Hellenic Navy? It also needs to be wikilinked.
  • It's spelled out and linked in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • The lead doesn't specify to readers that the Hellenic Navy is the Greek Navy. Even though it is linked, it has potential to be confusing to readers.
      • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

References

• link all locations (except where it is noted twice [i.e. Annapolis, Maryland and Naval Institute Press])
  • I never link publisher locations in bibliographies. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• link World Ship Society
• link Naval Institute Press to United States Naval Institute
  • Just about every major publisher has an article, why link to just these? In fact, why link to any? I think that you're going overboard with the idea of linking stuff in the bibliography. It's not a GA or FA requirement and I don't think that it improves the article any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Final thoughts

• I'm placing this article on hold until the issues are addressed. CrowzRSA 20:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Good to see another HMS at GA