Jump to content

Talk:HMS Medway (1928)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
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)[reply]

Review

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]