Talk:HMS Swallow (1744)

HMS Swallow (1744) 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: October 12, 2024. (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

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Early Modern

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Swallow (1744)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 21:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 13:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to this soon! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Very solid lede. Short, but doesn't need to be longer with a short article like this. Design, construction, and service are all written with clarity and I can't find anything that stands out as an MOS violation.

Sourcing:

High quality sources, consistently formatted with SFNs and a bibliography. Primary sources are used sparingly and in conjunction with other sources.

Spot check

All the Winfield 2007 cites check out. With archive.org being down, it's rather difficult to check many of these sources, but I was able to use Google Books previews to confirm the two Riley 2000 cites and Hepper 2023.

Breadth

~~8 meters~~

Seriously though, good coverage. I'm surprised there was this much info about such an obscure ship!

Neutral

Indeed. Seems like a fairly reasoned coverage of the ship's history.

Stable

Yep. Nominator is the only editor, I'd sure hope so.

Imaged

Both images are good. I would add alt-text, but that isn't a requirement. It looks like everything is shipshape here! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.