Talk:HMS Devonshire (39)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Euryalus (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Well written

Some minor points:

• Norwegian campaign

First paragraph: last sentence uses the phrase “by German aircraft” twice: suggest removing the first instance (and perhaps adding the word “again” before “near-missed”)

Good idea.

• Operation menace:

First paragraph: “still Cunningham’s flagship” seems out of place at the end of this lengthy sentence. Can it be broken out into a sentence following?

See how it reads now.

The Poncelet reference verifies the sinking but not that it was deliberately scuttled. Is there an alternative word that could be used here (perhaps just "forcing it to sink"), or an additional reference that verifies that this was a deliberate act by the crew?

Nothing I have available gives any real detail, so I've changed to "helped to sink".

“Departed the Clyde on 31 ...” is missing the word August?

“On the 14th, Cunningham dispatched ...” for consistency this might be changed to “On 14 August, Cunningham dispatched”

I still prefer to use "st" or "nd" for dates in the same month to avoid repetition.

• 1944-45

First sentence seems over-long.

She returned to duty with the Home Fleet at Scapa Flow in April 1944. This first sentence? Or do you mean the first sentence in the following paragraph, which I agree is too long?

What is a “half-sister” ship?

Suggest clarifying what Cashmore was by adding “the ship-breaking company” before the name.

I think that the issue was that the reader didn't know what Cashmore was, so I've spelled out the company's whole name.

2. Verifiable

• Y - Online refs all check out, as does Colledge FWIW. AGF on offline sources. No original research, no apparent copyvios.

3. Broad in coverage

• Y - though it would be nice to know more about the China station visit in 1932-33.

4. Neutral

• Y

5. Stable

• Y

6. Illustrated

• Does the lead image also need a US-PD tag?. Otherwise, Y - images are appropriately tagged, relevant and have suitable captions.
  • No, IWM images have a world-wide license.

Other

• Y - No dabs, no broken links

Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: thanks for the ping, will come back to this within 24 hours. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to go. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)