Talk:HMS Martin (1910)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 16:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Acorn class was"
- Corrected.
"the ship joined the Grand Fleet based at Devonport" this suggests that the Grand Fleet, rather than the destroyer, was based at Devonport, which I don't believe is true?
- Good spot. I have added a conjunction to make it clear.
"and potentially sank U-69" also, could this not equally be U-44?
- U-44 was neither damaged nor sunk in the attack. I have added that to the body.

"Acorn class was"
- Corrected.
I think a word or two on the intended role of destroyers would be useful towards the start of this, otherwise the reader is launched in rather suddenly
- I have added a bit of context. Please tell me if you feel there should be more.
Link aft
- Linked.

"undertake escort duties" escorting what?
- Clarified.
Link Dover
- Linked.
"merchant shipping had ceased" perhaps clarify where shipping had ceased? This could be misinterpreted!
- Clarified.
"instead the ships continued to have to route via the western coast of Britain." in connection to the previous point, this doesn't currently make much sense
- True.
"sunk" > "sank"
- Fixed.
"The depth" no capital needed
- I have amended the sentence so hopefully it is clearer.
"are reported to have damaged the submarine." by who?
- Added.
Link Lough Swilly
- Linked.
Link port
- Linked.
"3 other destroyers" believe your rule is to spell out single digit numbers
- Fixed.
"it may also" capital I
- Fixed.
Was Drake torpedoed under Martin's escort or did Martin only turn up afterwards?
- Clarified.
"keel over" suggest capsize
- Amended.
"Arabis-class sloop Delphinium" suggest being consistent on whether you state the class of ships; you do for some e.g. here but not others e.g. Drake
- Good spot. Added Drake.
"Armistice,Martin" space
- Added.
"However, the Royal Navy returned" > "The Royal Navy afterwards returned"
- Corrected.

I'm not seeing where Monograph No. 30 says what is cited with ref. 16
- Changed to better source.
Spot checks otherwise look OK, but a brief check by you on the monographs would be worthwhile
- Thank you. I have gone through them and added a sourced deployment in 1915.

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you for your excellent review. I believe I have made all the changes. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Have made one minor change but otherwise happy with the article. Passing as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]