Talk:Omani ship Nasr al Bahr

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Omani ship Nasr al Bahr/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 22:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 19:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

fail

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

• Why is everything in past-tense but there is no information about her being withdrawn from service? Ships are referred to as present-tense if they are in service.
  • Amended to the present tense.
• “the ship has been involved in a range of activities” - this is obvious to the reader. Why would she not be used for various activities?
  • Clarified.
• I think it would be better to introduce the Brooke Marine 93M design, then discuss how her and the Algerian ships are of the same design.
  • There is definitely a place for pages on the class and the Algerian ships. I will see what I can find to create them.
• A copyedit may be in order due to the odd tenses and structure

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

• “Design and development” is most of the body and is hard to navigate. Perhaps add subsections to divide the text up, such as creating “Design” and “Construction” further subdivided by “Sensors” and “Armament” sections
  • Added subsection.
• “Nasr al Bahr took part in large military exercises between the United Kingdom and Oman, including Exercise Saif Sareea in 1996 and Exercise Khanjar Haad in 2011.” - Is this Wiki:notable enough to be in the lead? The article does not expand much on this info.
  • Simplified and rephrased.
• The lead may need to be rewritten to be in accordance with WP:TECHNICAL. What does “The ship was a larger follow-on to Al Munassir” mean? Was she a sistership or of a later design?
  • Clarified.

• On a similar note, the line “Enable disembarkation on a gradient up to 1:40” in the lead should have terms either wikilinked or written without exact values, such as, “Her bow ramp allows for vehicles to be disembarked at steep angles”
  • Reworded.
• I also recommend the lead be split into two paragraphs for readability, possibly before “Launched in 1985”
  • On mobile readers, two short paragraphs can reduce accessibility, so I would prefer a single paragraph if possible.

1. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

• Citations look good.

1. B. 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):

• Sources are okay for Wikipedia, although it would be better if they were about the topic directly.

1. C. It contains no original research:

   pass

• Everything is cited

1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

• Copyvio does not object and no major portions of the article are copied from elsewhere

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

• I discuss this in-depth later, but the article includes trivial facts and does not explain important context

1. B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

• “Key to this is supporting Oman's strategically important islands, including Masirah Island.” Why is this important? Adding some context as to why the islands are important would help, and why the ship would support the islands.
  • The islands are in the Strait of Hormuz, which is a strategic hotspot. I feel that discussion of the importance of Oman's relationship with Iran and the British and US operations on the island would be outside the topic. Can you please give me guidance on what you feel would be relevant.
• “Between 29 May and 1 June 1990, the ship paid a visit to Goa.” Was this port visit important? If not, why include it? Per WP:OOS, information on Wikipedia is selected, organized, and explained.
  • Contextualised. Incidentally WP:OOS is an essay not a policy or guideline.

1. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

• I do not see any obvious issues with neutrality

1. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

• No edit waring, article is stable

1. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

• Image usable and relevant

1. B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

• Indicate which ship in the photo is Nasr al Bahr
  • Done.
• I am not sure which images are available for use, but it would be helpful to include an image of her unloading cargo or before/after her refit
  • That sounds a great idea. Unfortunately, this is the only image on Wikimedia.

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• The main issue with the article is that it is heavily reliant on data from naval annuals and indirect mentions, not sources that relate to the ship itself. As such, the article reads like a juxtaposed collection of facts. This issue, and numerous other grammatical issues (the most glaring I listed) prevents it from qualifying for B status, let alone GA. I am inclined to fail the article for these reasons. The only way to meet the well-written criteria is through a complete rewrite of the article, starting with a re-evaluation of the sources. I would also recommend a review of MOS:LEAD, MOS:BODY, and other GA-ship articles to see what has worked in the past. This is my first time reviewing a GA article, so I may have made some mistakes. Cheers!
  • Unfortunately the number of the reliable sources available on individual ships is limited and so GA ship articles often rely on sources like Conway's, Jane's and contemporary articles; for example, see French destroyer Fronde and Peruvian cruiser Lima.
  • @GGOTCC: Thank you for taking on this review. Please take a look at my edits and tell me if there are other things you would like changed. simongraham (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing! GGOTCC (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)