Talk:HMS Medway (1928)
![]() | HMS Medway (1928) 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: June 27, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Medway (1928) 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Medway (1928)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chris Troutman (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Review
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I reviewed this article to ensure it met GA criteria. I was able to find the Rohwer book but am AGF on the others. The image being used is licensed by the Imperial War Museum, so it's permissable for use. I would recommend that anyone reviewing for A-Class or FA ensure that information about time spent with China Station is added. There are other references from the submariner point of view that mention Medway that can be added. The current version meets the GA criteria, as being sunk was the only action this vessel ever saw. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Roskill's books the war at sea
[edit]Stephen Roskill's 3 volumes the war at sea which I read 25 years ago (or more) mentions Medway's sinking describing her as "an extremely valuable ship." From memory, only HMS Ark Royal (91)'s loss was similarly described. I assume this referred to her disproportionately effective fighting value rather than cost. JRPG (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out, WP:NOTAFORUM. That said, I haven't read that series of books so I couldn't speak to that. Certainly, submarine tenders have utility. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks Chris, I'm familiar with talk page rules though I don't feel I have enough knowledge to edit a submarine related article. I did however think it appropriate to draw attention to the dated but arguably still the main RN WW2 source available in the UK, noting it hasn't been used. I had hoped this would be helpful. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Roskill usually doesn't mention ships by name other than battleships and carriers so he's not a source that I normally use for ship articles, especially since I don't have full access. That said, I'd be happy to see somebody throw in a comment how Medway's loss adversely affected the sub campaign in the Med.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks Chris, I'm familiar with talk page rules though I don't feel I have enough knowledge to edit a submarine related article. I did however think it appropriate to draw attention to the dated but arguably still the main RN WW2 source available in the UK, noting it hasn't been used. I had hoped this would be helpful. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- 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 World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- GA-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- GA-Class Shipwreck articles
- Unknown-importance Shipwreck articles