Talk:HSwMS Niord/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 12:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim

Long tons and nautical miles are duplicated links
- Removed.
File:HMS Niord.jpg has no US PD and not currently sure about the existing Swedish rationale as no publishing date is provided for the "published anonymously before 1 January 1954" rationale.
- Updated the source and licenses.
Article is stable
Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

First class needs a hyphen
- Added.
"However, this service did not last long." I would consider 4-5 years of service to be enough that this sentence isn't needed
- Removed.
Main text could more explicitly explain the namesake (to avoid needing an infobox citation)
- Added.
Should the infobox have the design speed instead of the trials speed?
- Good point. Changed.
Complement differs between infobox and main text
- Oops. Amended.

Design and development

Why/how was Oden successful? First sentence of the first paragraph is tipping the reader straight into the deep end!
- Clarified.
A word on what makes a ship "first-class"?
- Added.
"After reconstruction" give the year here
- Added.
Link bow
- Added.
Link nickel-steel
- Added.
Suggest moving the searchlight mention to the end of the third paragraph, seems awkward coming after unrelated armour explanation
- Moved.

Construction and career

Sentence beginning "On 20 February 1904..." has two "in response"s which is awkward reading
- Reworded.
Day Bosanquet was a knight (1905)
- Added.
Do we know where she was based during her service? Which parts of the coast, or which port?
- Unfortunately, the sources do not give any more information than I have given.
"out of ~~the~~ front-line service"
- Removed.
"and finally to be an exhibit" something missing here
- Clarified.

References

References look good. AGF for print sources.

@Simongraham: Hi, apologies for the delay (my work is making these more common than they should be!), that's all I have for now. Not sure if Sturmvogel 66 might want to be involved as well? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Not a problem. Very kindly, Sturmvogel 66 has already had a look through and provided very helpful suggestions, which have already been acted on. Please look at my comments above. I believe all the changes you request are done. simongraham (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]