Talk:Briton-class corvette/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SimonTrew (talk · contribs) 15:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start the review shortly. At a very first pass it seems very well written and knowedgable, with good links and references; both internally to other Wikipedia pages and externally. My comments, thus, are likely to be very nit picky. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory opening comments:

Refs to Lyon and Winfield, via {{winfield}}. They cannot ALL be on p. 288 can they? I have added a harvref into {{winfield}} and probably should make it WInfield & Lyon, or Lyon & Winfield, but I find it a bit odd that a whole stack of references are on the same page.

To that end, more seriously there are only actually four references in the article: Winfield, Ballard, Chesneau & Kolesnik and Gardiner. There is no problem with that as such, but my slight worry is that it may seem like the article is very well referenced when in fact there are just four references. I hope by putting it into Harvnb form that makes it clearer.

All the refs to Lyon and Winfield are indeed to the same page as that has the most reliable info on the ships' characteristics. They're covering a large number of ships in thir book, so each class has only a page or less. I'll change the Gardiner ref to Chesneau & Kolesnik as it should have been.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with this? It's been nearly three weeks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't edited since the 18th, so I'll put this back in the queue. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]