Talk:Thames-class frigate/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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".
- 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.
- 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 governor Done
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."
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)