Talk:HMS Savage (1910)/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:HMS Savage (1910)/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Savage (1910)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|Simongraham}} 14:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 03:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I will take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

=Prelim=

  • Article is stable
  • Battlecruiser is a duplicated link
  • Removed
  • Image is correctly licensed
  • Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

=Design and development=

  • "in this case by John I. Thornycroft & Company"
  • Added.
  • Do we know the type of depth charge carried?
  • Unfortunately the sources do not say.

=Construction and career=

  • "2 August 1914" repeated year
  • Removed.
  • "on a more successful sortie to Bizerta to coal" I don't understand this, more successful than what? This is a coaling sortie, so unsure if this is meant to be a direct comparison with a hunt for German warships?
  • Good point. Removed,
  • "Admiral Sackville Carden" Carden was a vice-admiral at the time
  • Added.
  • "the destroyer sailed for Tenedos," meant to be a full stop?
  • Yes. Good spot.
  • "A division of the class was dispatched to Devonport"...this part is a bit of a sudden turn from service off Turkey, and doesn't make it totally clear that it is referring to Savage
  • Clarified.
  • "called out on the night of 31 December to search for the survivors" Formidable was not torpedoed until 1 January
  • Corrected.
  • When does Savage return to the Mediterranean Fleet from the North Sea?
  • Added, with a source.

=References=

  • References look good. AGF for print sources.
  • Corbett 1923, Grehan 2014, and Parkes 1969 are not used as sources.
  • Removed.

{{ping|Simongraham}} Hi, that's all I have for now. Apologies again for the delay. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}} Not a problem. Thank you for taking the time to do this. simongraham (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Simongraham}} Passing this as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)