Talk:HMS Sickle/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 04:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'll review this one. I'll have a first review up in the next day or two. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- I'll have to AGF on the offline book sources, but online sources appear to confirm the substance of the article. Uboat.net isn't necessarily a reliable source, but it claims that its details come from the British National Archives, and I guess I'm willing to accept that.
I don't think the dictionary citation for the definition of the word "sickle" is necessary; that can probably be handled by the wikilink to the article Sickle and letting it pass as "common knowledge".- You're probably right that the definition of "sickle" is common knowledge, but personally I prefer to keep the cite just to be on the safe side. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's a strange reply. I notice that you didn't feel the need to cite a dictionary to confirm the definitions of any of the other words used in this article (e.g. motor, coast, submarine, patrol, propeller, torpedo, etc.), even ones that genuinely are likely to be unfamiliar to a reader (e.g. caïque, pennon, tonnage), allowing a wikilink to cover any confusion. You haven't cited dictionaries to confirm the definitions of the common-noun names of any of the other S-Class subs you've nominated (e.g. Stratagem, Simoom), even though the average English speaker is far less likely to know off the top of the head what the simoom is than what a sickle is. The definition of the word "sickle" clearly falls under the heading of "common knowledge" and does not need a citation; a wikilink is enough. It should be removed. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, fair. Done. For the record, I did cite the definitions of the namesakes of Simoom, Syrtis, Stonehenge and others; the ref is Encyclopedia of British Submarines 1901–1955. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's a strange reply. I notice that you didn't feel the need to cite a dictionary to confirm the definitions of any of the other words used in this article (e.g. motor, coast, submarine, patrol, propeller, torpedo, etc.), even ones that genuinely are likely to be unfamiliar to a reader (e.g. caïque, pennon, tonnage), allowing a wikilink to cover any confusion. You haven't cited dictionaries to confirm the definitions of the common-noun names of any of the other S-Class subs you've nominated (e.g. Stratagem, Simoom), even though the average English speaker is far less likely to know off the top of the head what the simoom is than what a sickle is. The definition of the word "sickle" clearly falls under the heading of "common knowledge" and does not need a citation; a wikilink is enough. It should be removed. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'll have to AGF on the offline book sources, but online sources appear to confirm the substance of the article. Uboat.net isn't necessarily a reliable source, but it claims that its details come from the British National Archives, and I guess I'm willing to accept that.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- The article seems to cover all the major aspects of the topic (design, construction, service history), and doesn't get lost in any excessive detail.
It's a minor detail and might seem obvious, but I wish the text that discusses the boat's name pointed out that all the S-class subs were given names that begin with 'S'. The lead explains that the "damage" done by TA14 and TA15 at Karlovasi was to Sickle's electric motors, but that detail is left out of the corresponding part of the body; it should be added in.- Re comment 1: Although it would probably be considered common knowledge, I'm a bit uncomfortable adding unreferenced text like this. Also, the submarines did not all have names starting with "S" (i.e. HMS P222) and many were named Pxxx until 1942, when they were renamed with names starting in S (e. g. HMS Saracen (P247)). L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Surely what you're referring to are the subs' pennant numbers, not their names. The article British S-class submarine (1931) seems to indicate that, indeed, every last one of them was given a name beginning with 'S' (it explains that P222 was simply destroyed before she could be christened). I think it's a relevant detail, and it's only unreferenced if you don't add a reference to it. Look for documents about the history of the S-Class (e.g. this seems to indicated that the experimental boats were named S-1 and so on, and that perhaps that is the source of the class name, which led to the boats all being named with 'S's). If a source really can't be found, then I suppose it could be left out, but I'd be surprised if literally no one has ever written down the observation that all of the S-Class subs have 'S'-names. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, I am not referring to their pennants. All British submarines commissioned between 1940 and 1943 were actually named PXXX, until they were renamed after Churchill insisted that they should have names other then pennants. I've spent ~ 30 minutes looking for a source to say the S-class subs had names starting with "S", but so far I've been unable to find one. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's a common naming practice, especially for the RN. See Ship class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Surely what you're referring to are the subs' pennant numbers, not their names. The article British S-class submarine (1931) seems to indicate that, indeed, every last one of them was given a name beginning with 'S' (it explains that P222 was simply destroyed before she could be christened). I think it's a relevant detail, and it's only unreferenced if you don't add a reference to it. Look for documents about the history of the S-Class (e.g. this seems to indicated that the experimental boats were named S-1 and so on, and that perhaps that is the source of the class name, which led to the boats all being named with 'S's). If a source really can't be found, then I suppose it could be left out, but I'd be surprised if literally no one has ever written down the observation that all of the S-Class subs have 'S'-names. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Re comment 2: It is actually mentioned one paragraph later, which discusses the repairs the submarine undertook. Since Sickle also sustained other less significant damage, I think it is better like this. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- It is mentioned later, but not explained (it does not say that the reason she needed repairs to her electric motors was the damage done at Karlovasi), and why make the reader wait so confusingly long for such relevant information? If you feel that it's important that the fact the *not only* the motors were damaged be clear, then say that, also (e.g. "...while looking into the harbour at Karlovasi, and she took significant damage, including to her electric motors, from depth charges dropped..." or "...while looking into the harbour at Karlovasi, and the German torpedo boats TA14 and TA15 struck her with depth charges, damaging her electric motors and other systems..."). -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- It is mentioned later, but not explained (it does not say that the reason she needed repairs to her electric motors was the damage done at Karlovasi), and why make the reader wait so confusingly long for such relevant information? If you feel that it's important that the fact the *not only* the motors were damaged be clear, then say that, also (e.g. "...while looking into the harbour at Karlovasi, and she took significant damage, including to her electric motors, from depth charges dropped..." or "...while looking into the harbour at Karlovasi, and the German torpedo boats TA14 and TA15 struck her with depth charges, damaging her electric motors and other systems..."). -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- The article seems to cover all the major aspects of the topic (design, construction, service history), and doesn't get lost in any excessive detail.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- The tone is appropriately neutral.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- All the images are relevant and appear to have valid licenses.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- A solid article! A few small details to address, and then it should be ready for GA! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I think I've responded to all of your comments. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Good work, and I retract my request for a comment about the 'S'-names. This article is promoted to GA! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- A solid article! A few small details to address, and then it should be ready for GA! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
