Talk:Thames-class frigate
Appearance
![]() | Thames-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: August 23, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Thames-class frigate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 04:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I will take a look at this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]- Suggest adding the point that these frigates served in the Royal Navy. Perhaps ...class of eight ships of the Royal Navy that was based...
Done
- To help put the era of the ships in context suggest ...against
theNapoleon's expected invasion of Britain. (with a link on Napoleon).Done
Design and construction
[edit]- shouldn't Thames class be hyphenated throughout the text, as per the title of the article? Same would apply to Richmond class presumably?
Not done I'm open to another opinion here but I based when to use a hyphen or not off the Iowa-class battleship article. It uses hyphens when the class and type of ship are noted e.g. "Essex-class aircraft carriers" but removes the hyphen when more broadly mentioning a class e.g. "the Japanese Kongō class".
- OK, I get the reasoning there. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Suggest ...32-gun frigate that served with the Royal Navy from 1756.
Not done The 1756 relates to when the class was designed; to say what you suggest would actually be incorrect because the first ships of the class weren't launched until 1757.
- It may already be obvious, but I just want to get across to readers early on that this design was for the RN. Maybe The Richmond design was brought back for the Royal Navy... Zawed (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Done
- It may already be obvious, but I just want to get across to readers early on that this design was for the RN. Maybe The Richmond design was brought back for the Royal Navy... Zawed (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Richmond design was brought back...: Suggest adding the year in which the class was brought back.
Done
- The word design/designs is used quite a lot in the first paragraph; suggest altering a few to avoid this repetition. For example ...original
design plansblueprints of the Richmond class...Done
- suggest ...deficiencies created with the smaller classes of vessels such...
Done
- Is it known who the naval architect was that modernised the original design? - no name is associated with the class apart from Bately. Have to assume that because the changes to the design were only minimal he was still credited with it.
- Can conversions for the recited knots be provided?
Done
Pallas
[edit]- At the start of the 2nd para, better add the year.
Done
- participating under him in the initial stages: not clear who "him" is here
Done
Circe
[edit]- What's a "cutting out expedition"? - A naval boarding; already linked in paragraph one of Pallas
- fifty-six casualties: numerals for large numbers?
Not done my rule is to write out numbers below triple digits, if there's a standard Wikipedia rule for this I'm not aware of it
Thames
[edit]- As above in respect of numerals for large numbers
Not done per previous response
- suggest heights of the island, inducing
theits governorDone
Throughout the discussion of the various ships of the class, there are a few instances where their commander is mentioned by rank e.g. Captain Smith, after already being introduced in full with the rank, which isn't necessary. Done
Citations
[edit]- In the Winfield refs, a hyphen is used in the year range instead of a proper dash (which is used in the ref section for the Winfield refs). Ditto for the page ranges.
Done hopefully I've caught them all!
- In cite 10, there looks like a pg no. is missing - don't think so? "Wareham, The Frigate Captains, pp. 15–6."
- Should that be pp. 15–16? Zawed (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Done
- Should that be pp. 15–16? Zawed (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Other stuff
[edit]- Image tag for existing image looks OK
- Given the article length, it would be nice to have another image - there is one on the Pallas article that could be used
Done frustrating that there aren't more available images of the ships!
- No dupe links
That's it for me. Will check back in a few days. Zawed (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Zawed: Thanks for the review, I've responded to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good so passing as GA as I consider that it meets the relevant criteria. Zawed (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class Napoleonic era articles
- Napoleonic era task force articles