Talk:HMS P222/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 18:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 18:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Dab links, dup links, external links tools all show no problems. Copyvio detector shows green.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • Is there a date for the caption of the lead image?

• Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • Design and description: Might be good to start the section of explaining what the S class was, role and/or if this was a line of similar type ships or an outlier, as jumping in to talk about batches starts it off a bit disjointed.

• Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "Though the boat did not encounter enemy forces, the convoy operation was largely successful" -- This seems to imply the patrol have been unsuccessful unless it was attacked? Not entirely clear on phrasing.
   • Re:sinking: Were there any efforts to search for her worth mentioning?

• None that we've found.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. • "Her wreck was claimed to have been found off Cape Negro, Tunisia, by a Belgian amateur diver, but there has been no confirmation of the finding.[7]" -- What year was this? Any efforts to verify the wreckage?

• Not that we know of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • Have generally discouraged the use of the term "enemy" in articles, in favor of more neutral explanation of OpFor in question, in this case Axis/Nazi German/Italian ships. Thoughts?

• No, enemy is perfectly reasonable in this context.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Two images tagged PD where appropriate.

3. Other:

   On Hold Nothing major, but a few points to address before passing GAN. —Ed!^(talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nothing significant enough to hold further. Passing GA. —Ed!^(talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)