Talk:HMS Cato (1782)
Appearance
HMS Cato (1782) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 23, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Cato (1782) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hound
[edit]@Acad Ronin: Hi, do you have another reference for Hound sailing on to Bombay? I don't think that Lloyd's mentions it. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: All I have are the LL items I added. The items have her leaving Madeira for the EI and have her arriving from Bombay, but there is none that has her arriving there. Winfield merely states that in October 1782 she sailed for the EI, and that she was broken up at Woolwich in 1784. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Acad Ronin: Ah, got it now. Thanks. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: All I have are the LL items I added. The items have her leaving Madeira for the EI and have her arriving from Bombay, but there is none that has her arriving there. Winfield merely states that in October 1782 she sailed for the EI, and that she was broken up at Woolwich in 1784. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Cato (1782)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I will review this one in the next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Design
- both of which were anomalous types: suggest "both of which were anomalous types of ships"
- Done
- the navy ordered...: shouldn't navy be capitalised?
- Reworded anyway
- ...twenty-nine of them, of which ten were of fifty guns.: not sure of the consistency of writing out numbers, particularly fifty, since "50-gun" is used earlier in the text.
- Reworded
Construction
- No issues
Disappearance
- No issues, but I suggest having the main heading as Service, with Disappearance as a subheading for the paragraph starting "Having reached South America". I appreciate that this would be more of an editorial choice though, hence it is a suggestion only.
- Done
other stuff
- Sources look fine
- Image tags OK
- No dupe links
Only a few issues found, this looks to be in pretty good order otherwise. Placing on hold. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Zawed: Hi, thanks for the review. Have replied above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Happy with these changes, so am passing this as GA as I believe that it meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages