Talk:HMAS Hobart (D63)/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Comments to follow over next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, apologies for the delay in getting to this - I had anticipated starting this earlier in the week but real life got out of hand a little! Anyway, have done my initial pass over of the article.
Initial comments
- Dupe link: Espiritu Santo
- No dab links
- Checklinks identified a couple of dead links; one is the external link section so could probably just be deleted, but the other one is the cite for Hobart being at the Japanese surrender.
- Image tags check out OK
Lead
- The third sentence of the lead is excessively long.
Infobox
- A lot of the characteristics in the infobox are not mentioned in the article body e.g. length, beam etc..., so should be cited. However, most ship articles will incorporate the characteristics as text to do away with the need for citing the infobox. See HMS Gloucester (62) as an example.
Design and construction
- "one for each machinery space"; I think it better to replace machinery space with "unit" for consistency with the phrase "two self-contained units" introduced earlier in this section.
- There are two consecutive cites to page 15 of Frame in this section, delete the first of these if it is not an error. This also applies to the final paragraph of this section, which cites the same page in Bastock three times for each sentence; these should be consolidated. Further note: having gone through the operational history, I see a lot of these repeated cites issues.
Operational history
- The Royal Navy section is extremely short; is there anything that could be added here; her commander, home port in the West Indies? You could probably also mention the decommissioning from the RN.
- "transferred to the RAN on 6 October"; first mention of the RAN so state in full then abbreviate. You could also abbreviate the Royal Navy as well (beginning in previous section).
- "visited her namesake city"; need to mention the actual name of the ship earlier for context.
- link Singapore, Colombo, Ceylon, Aden
- "volunteers": the pipelink here is to Hugh Sweeney; rather than the pipe link, I would mention him directly in the text.
- "Hobart's captain"; do we have the name of the captain, if so, perhaps introduce earlier if possible.
- "collected 57 of the 70 aboard": 70 what? I know it is kind of obvious, but we do need to be explicit.
- "On 7 August, Hobart supported..." Would add the year here for clarity. The way the following sentence started, I initially thought it was not in chronological order. There seems to be quite a gap in her service history between August 1942 and July 1943; is there anything that can be added here? When did she join Task Force 74?
- "...serious damage.[12] The damage...": close repeat usage of the same word (damage), suggest rephrasing.
Citations
- For the book citations, a couple are in the harvard style (author, year, page), e.g. cite 3. I suggest converting them all to this style in the wiki markup. I have duplicated cite 3 to this effect as an exemplar. You'll see how it links to the citation, this can be handy for readers.
References
- The Campbell ref does not have publisher's location. Ditto the Linton and Colledge ref, which also needs an OCLC number.
Hope that this is helpful, will check back in a few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Status query edit
It's been over seven weeks since this was placed on hold. L293D, Zawed, will the work be done soon? If not, perhaps this should be closed and renominated later once the work has been done. In such a case, Zawed, you could (but certainly don't have to) offer to pick up the new nomination when it's made. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)