Talk:HMS Minion (1915)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Minion (1915)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll look this over soon. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources

2. Verifiable with no original research:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

• 2a. Just one very minor issue:
  • Short cite #24 "Newbolt 1931, p. 151–156." – Should be "pp", rather than "p".
    • Good spot. Fixed. simongraham (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2b. All content cited inline.
• 2c. Most sources are offline, but some spotchecks were done on the online sources:
  • "On 26 and 27 February 1916, the flotilla took part in a large naval exercise east of Shetland, involving four flotillas of destroyers, as well as all the operational battlecruisers, battleships and cruisers of the Grand Fleet. The exercise was deemed a success." – I can't see where in the source (Naval Staff Monograph No. 31 1926, p. 83.) it says that the exercise was considered a success?
    • Sentence removed. simongraham (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "Minion was deployed as part of the Grand Fleet, joining the Eleventh Destroyer Flotilla." – I don't see Minion mentioned at all on the linked page ("Destroyer Flotillas of the Grand Fleet". Supplement to the Monthly Navy List: 12. October 1915. Retrieved 2 June 2023 – via National Library of Scotland.)
    • I see the wrong edition was linked. Fixed. simongraham (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "The destroyer remained part of the Eleventh Destroyer Flotilla on 19 August, based at Scapa Flow." – Checks out fine.
  • "At the beginning of the following year, the destroyer was transferred to the Fourth Destroyer Flotilla to act as local defence for the naval base at Devonport." – Checks out fine.
• 2d. No concerns on the spotchecks.

Images

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• 6a. Appropriate PD tag on the only image used.
• 6b. Image used is relevant and suitably captioned. Consider adding alt text to the image, but it isn't a GA requirement.

Prose

1. Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• 1a. Not much wrong, just a couple of things to look at:
  • Consider linking "First War Programme" to War Emergency Programme destroyers.
    • Added. simongraham (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "The M class was an improved version of the earlier L-class.." – Remove the hyphen from "L-class" I think?
    • Removed. simongraham (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Link High Seas Fleet.
• 1b. Similar, just minor issues.
  • Per WP:REDHAT, remove the "For other ships.." note.
    • Removed. simongraham (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • "..returned to Scapa Flow on 2 June. The destroyer remained part of the Eleventh Destroyer Flotilla on 19 August, based at Scapa Flow." Link Scapa Flow on the first, not second use.
    • Moved. simongraham (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• 3a. A quick Google doesn't reveal any obvious gaps.
• 3b. Does not go into excessive detail.
• 4. Neutral.
• 5. Stable.

Response

@Harrias: Thank you for this very helpful review. I think the changes you have kindly pointed out have been made. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Changes look good, passing. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.