Talk:Thames-class frigate

Thames-class frigate has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 23, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thames-class frigate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 04:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

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 ~~the~~ Napoleon's expected invasion of Britain. (with a link on Napoleon). Done

Design and construction

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".

OK, I get the reasoning there. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It may already be obvious, but I just want to get across to readers early on that this design was for the RN. Maybe The Richmond design was brought back for the Royal Navy... Zawed (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Done[reply]

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 plans~~ blueprints 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

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

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

As above in respect of numerals for large numbers Not done per previous response
suggest heights of the island, inducing ~~the~~ its 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

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."

Should that be pp. 15–16? Zawed (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Done[reply]

Other stuff

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)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for the review, I've responded to your comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so passing as GA as I consider that it meets the relevant criteria. Zawed (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]