Talk:HMS Lookout (1914)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 16:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Prelim
[edit]- Destroyer is technically a duplicated link but as it's in different sections it's allowed now
- Good spot though.
- No edit wars
- Image is correctly licensed
- Earwig reports copyvio unlikely
Lede and infobox
[edit]- Is there a redirect to this page using a variation of HMS Dragon? If not I don't think you need to bold the name; she never served under it
- Removed.
- Is 24 August 1922 the date of her decommissioning or her sale for scrapping (or both?)
- The source says date of sale. Ammended.
Design and development
[edit]- Link knots
- Added.
Construction and career
[edit]- "that
wereall received"- Removed.
- Link commissioning
- Added.
- The First World War is never mentioned in main text
- Added.
- Was the Battle of Heligoland Bight not on 28 August?
- It seems that the ships sailed on 27 August but the encounter took place on the following day. Amended.
- "succeeded to drive" > "succeeded in driving"
- Fixed.
- Link refitted
- Added.
- "undertaking the varied tasks typical of a destroyer's service at the time" I assume you mean the tasks you then discuss after this sentence, but the reader shouldn't be left to guess
- Clarified.
- "anti-aircraft guns"
- Added.
- "which were themselves" > "which was itself"
- Amended.
- Surely the capture of two German trawlers is a success rather than an incident?
- True. Amended.
- "flotilla supporting an attack"
- Added.
- "Lookout again remaining unscathed" any particular actions she took during this engagement?
- There is nothing specific in the sources.
- Link Plymouth
- Amended to Devonport as more accurate, and linked.
- What did Lookout do in 1918?
- The sources do not say much, but I have added what I have.
References
[edit]- References look good. AGF on print sources.
- Corbett 1921 is not cited
- Oops. That looks like confusion between the different volumes. Fixed.
@Simongraham: Hi, that's all I have for now. Will await your responses. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you for your very thorough review. I have made some amendments. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)