Jump to content

Talk:Perseverance-class frigate: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
GAN
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Remove 5 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5.
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA|21:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)|topic=Warfare|page=1|oldid=1091529691}}
{{GA nominee|10:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Warfare|status=|note=}}
{{WikiProject Ships|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
{{WikiProject Military history|Napoleonic=y|Maritime=y|British=y|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Ships}}
{{WikiProject Military history|Napoleonic=y|Maritime=y|British=y|class=GA|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
}}

{{Talk:Perseverance-class frigate/GA1}}

Latest revision as of 11:28, 7 February 2024

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Perseverance-class frigate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 11:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Yes, oops!
  • "leaving more space than was often found to operate them in." - I've read this three times and I'm not entirely sure what this is trying to indicate - can it be rephrased for clarify?
  • Rewritten
  • " The ships would in later years be classified as 42-gun frigates." - was this a reclassification on paper, a change in armament, or both
  • Just the navy deciding to count more of the guns that were already there
  • "By 1800 the majority of British frigates were of a size with the ships of other nations" - is this missing a word?
  • No, but clarified
  • The lead directly states that the 1808 order was an accident, but this is relegated to a footnote in the main body. If it's significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead, I would say it should probably be in the main text of the body as well
  • Done
  • "nd their crew complement was set slightly lower than the original iteration of the class; at 260," - I thought that was what the original iterations of the class had for the crew, as that was the original figure and the 270 was with later adjustments
  • The later adjustment was a year before the first ship of the class was even launched, no ship of the original iteration actually went to sea with that number (on paper!)
  • Have..hopefully..added the correct thing
  • Image licensing otherwise looks fine, sources are reliable for what they are citing

I think that's it from me for this one, good work. Hog Farm Talk 19:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Hi, thanks for the review! I've replied to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]