Talk:NMS Regina Maria/GA1

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: L293D (talk · contribs) 22:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Very nice article - will be doing this in the next couple days. This review will be very similar to the one at Talk:NMS Regele Ferdinand/GA1, but this is not a copy and paste of it. L293D ( • ) 19:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • Add a couple sentences about the laying down, launching, and commissioning after opening sentence.

Background and design

edit
  • Add {{Main Article}} or {{See also}} to Regele Ferdinand-class destroyer
  • and the fire-control system was from Germany - remove "was".
  • The Regele Ferdinand-class ships had an overall length of 101.9 metres (334 ft 4 in), had a beam of 9.6 metres - remove second had.
  • and a mean draught of - what does "mean" do here?
  • Merge sentence 2 and 3 in second para.
  • Link 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 at the end of 4th para.

Construction and Career

edit
  • named for Queen Marie of Romania - after would do better
  • laid down by Pattison[7] in 1927 at their Naples, Italy, shipyard. - reword, reads confusingly.
  • The ship was assigned to the Destroyer Squadron - was there only one destroyer squadron in Romania?
  • Link Constanța.
  • Link Crimean Offensive somewhere - that's what the boat did for most of its war service.
  • The phrase "the Romanians" comes up in two consecutive sentences in para 2 - change one to "Romanian Navy" or something similar.
  • when she was discarded - to my knowledge, discarded is not a nautical term. Stricken might do better.

GA Progress

edit
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.