Talk:HMS Midge (1913)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 18:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 02:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

@Simongraham: I intend to review this article for GA class. I've skimmed it and it looks well-written. Djmaschek (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review 1

@Simongraham: Each issue is listed below, together with its location. Please either fix or argue your case for not fixing it. Unless I find something earth-shaking, this seems to be the whole list. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria: Well-written, Verifiable (spot checked web sources), Broad, Neutral, Stable, Illustrated. Done
Introduction: "The Acasta class were" > Better: "The Acasta class destroyers were" or "The Acasta class was". Done
Mismatch: Infobox: Draught = 10ft 6in. Text: Draught = 10ft 5in. Done
Mismatch: Infobox: Displacement = 936 long tons. Text: Displacement = 892 long tons normal & 1,072 deep load. Done
Design and development, paragraph 3: "the torpedo tubes and one of the 4-inch guns was removed" > "were removed". Done
Mismatch: Infobox: Completed = March 1913. Text: Completed = March 1914. (Construction and career, paragraph 1) Done
Construction and career, paragraph 3: "22:30 hr" > "22:30 hours". (I'm not sure what is commonly done, but hr looks wrong.) Done
References: The Jellicoe ref is not in alphabetical order. Done

@Djmaschek: Thank you for this review. I concur with all your comments and, hopefully, have made the amendments that are needed. I also added a couple of categories that I think are helpful. Please tell me if there is anything else that you notice. simongraham (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]