Talk:HMS Foresight (H68)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 11:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• and does not appear to have been attached to the Mediterranean Fleet in 1935–36 during the Abyssinia Crisis, nor did she enforce the arms blockade imposed by Britain and France on both sides of the conflict the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939; why is this unusual?
  • Clarified, good catch.
• The ship escorted the larger ships ; suggested: Foresight escorted larger ships
  • Actually, I think that it reads better with the article.

Description

• The F-class ships were repeats of the preceding E-class.; consider revising, struck me as rather informal tone?
  • See how it reads now.

Construction

• The ship cost 245,428 pounds; seems an unusual phrasing?
  • How so? Do you prefer the pound symbol instead?
    • It just caught me as unusual; in my mind it didn't read like a monetary value because, of course, we're training to read symbols (which I suppose is illogical). Not worried about it, just interested
• excluding government-furnished equipment like the armament; "such as the armament"?
  • Good idea.
• All of the F-class destroyers were assigned; I might have included the number of F-Class destroyers created
  • Added to the lede.
• but Fortune remained assigned to it until July 1940; you mean Foresight?
  • Ooops.
• , and, Foresight, unlike her sister ships, did not leave home waters during the 1930s; so the 6th Flotilla did leave home waters? And she stayed behind? Any reason? This sentence lost me a bit.
  • I wish I knew why. Her sisters spent months in the Med or the Red Seas in response to various crises.
• The 6th DF was renumbered the 8th Destroyer Flotilla in April 1939, but Fortune remained assigned to it until July 1940, escorting the larger ships of the fleet,[5] including during the Norwegian Campaign.[6]; lots of fragments here. Did she stay assigned to the 6th? Or the 8th? What happened the other destroyers?
  • The 6th became the 8th and she remained with it until July 1940, while most of her sisters were transferred to other flotillas before then. Reworked the sentence, see how it works for you now.
• including during the Norwegian Campaign; I might have clarified here that the war started & this was an early part of it
  • Done.

• In late June; of which year? (new para)
  • Considering that the year is listed in the immediately preceding sentence, not to worried that I'll lose the reader.
    • I missed that sorry
• Force H; what is Force H?
  • Linked in the lede.
• Force H met a convoy that was carrying troops; this reads as if it came across them by accident (and I assumed it might mean the enemy). Suggest joined with instead of met
• Ten days later, they attacked Dakar where Foresight and the destroyer Inglefield sank the French submarine Persée on the 23rd[9] and Foresight sank the submarine Bévéziers two days later; I think the grammar here might need revisiting.
  • How so? It's only two main clauses linked by a conjunction with a short subordinate clause as introduction. Mildly tweaked to clarify time, but not sure what you mean.

• On 31 January; again, I recommend a year being added here for context (new para)
  • New para less important than introduction of new year.
• flew off aircraft for Malta ; Malta? part of a campaign? I'd give this paragraph more context seeing as the overall Malta campaign is the crux of it
  • See how it reads now.
• This was part of Operation Tiger which included a supply convoy taking tanks to the Middle East and the transfer of warships; context for the "transfer of warships" (to where?), suggest commas around "taking tanks to the Middle East" (and after warships when context added).
  • I don't think that the commas are needed as those parts that you identified aren't really subordinate clauses.
• after she escorted her last convoy to Malta of the year; was this not part of Force H's operations? This sentence confused me slightly
  • Simplified.

• Foresight Forester ; missing comma?
  • Indeed.
• and had to be scuttled on 15 May by the destroyer Matchless; how could she be escorted home if she was scuttled? I assume she was scuttled on the journey home? I think maybe this sentence needs have a "but" in there?
  • Reworked.
• broke her back; consider referring to Keel here
  • Good idea.
• By the time the destroyer HMS Tartar arrived, Foresight could only steam at two knots (3.7 km/h; 2.3 mph) and a towline was secured by 17:30; previous sentence happened at 18:40 on the 12th. So is this the 13th? What time did Tartar arrive?
  • Good catch, typo
• Shortly afterwards, the towing wire fouled Tartar‍ '​s starboard propeller; another wire was rigged by 20:40, but it had to be slipped when an unknown force of one cruiser and two destroyers was spotted at close range and the tow was slipped until their identity was confirmed as friendly; consider revising this long sentence
  • Redundant detail removed.

Notes

• On my screen the image on the left pushes the notes across the screen
  • What image, the scuttling? Looks fine on my 13-inch MacBook Air and OK on my 27-inch monitor until I go full screen. Problem is that the photo illustrates events in the last para and needs to be where it is.
    • On a 24" widescreen it pushes it out. Not a major issue.

I enjoyed the article, it mostly just needs a bit of a copy-edit to push it to GA quality. Sources I may have to AGF but I will spot check where I can later. Please feel free to reply inline above, and I may add further comments as I re-read the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your close reading of the article. See how my changes meet your comments.
  • All looks fine, mostly having to AGF on the references (but not concerned about that). Image review is okay. Coverage is plenty enough for GA. Citations meet normal expectations. etc. etc. Good stuff. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)