Talk:Perseverance-class frigate

Perseverance-class frigate has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 4, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Perseverance-class frigate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 11:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 18-pounder link in the lead goes to a WWI gun, do you mean 18-pounder long gun?

Yes, oops!

"leaving more space than was often found to operate them in." - I've read this three times and I'm not entirely sure what this is trying to indicate - can it be rephrased for clarify?

Rewritten

" The ships would in later years be classified as 42-gun frigates." - was this a reclassification on paper, a change in armament, or both

Just the navy deciding to count more of the guns that were already there

"By 1800 the majority of British frigates were of a size with the ships of other nations" - is this missing a word?

No, but clarified

The lead directly states that the 1808 order was an accident, but this is relegated to a footnote in the main body. If it's significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead, I would say it should probably be in the main text of the body as well

Done

"nd their crew complement was set slightly lower than the original iteration of the class; at 260," - I thought that was what the original iterations of the class had for the crew, as that was the original figure and the 270 was with later adjustments

The later adjustment was a year before the first ship of the class was even launched, no ship of the original iteration actually went to sea with that number (on paper!)

I did a couple source spot-checks, no issues
File:Grand Port mg6981.jpg needs a PD tag for the underlying work of the painting

Have..hopefully..added the correct thing

Image licensing otherwise looks fine, sources are reliable for what they are citing

I think that's it from me for this one, good work. Hog Farm _Talk 19:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Hi, thanks for the review! I've replied to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]