HMS Nemesis (1910) 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: November 8, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 / World War I 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 World War I task force United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Nemesis (1910)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 20:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

I plan to review this article for GA class. I've skimmed it and it looks pretty good. Djmaschek (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review 1

@Simongraham: Please edit the following or argue your case for not fixing. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Introduction: "The Acorn class were..." (Recommend: The Acorn class ships were...)  Done
  • Fixed.
• Introduction: "but oil-fired and better armed." (Recommend: but were oil-fired and better armed.)  Done
  • Added.
• Introduction: "and as an escort protecting shipping against submarines deployed at Devonport." (Recommend: Move "deployed at Devonport" after "and". Otherwise, it looks like the subs were deployed at Devonport!)  Done
  • Moved.
• Introduction: "joined the 11th Japanese Destroyer Division" (Suggest: Is there some way you can describe the fact that the ship was loaned to the Japanese and manned by a Japanese crew? I liked the way you described it under the Construction and career section.)  Done
  • Amended.
• Design and development, paragraph 1: "The coal-burning Beagle class were..." (Recommend: The coal-burning Beagle class destroyers were... OR The coal-burning Beagle class was...)  Done
  • Fixed.
• Design and development, paragraph 2: Infobox data matches text data.  Done
  • Checked.
• Construction and career, paragraph 2, sentence 1: "the Flotilla became" (Recommend: the Second Flotilla became).  Done
  • Added.
• Construction and career, paragraph 3: "Karapara escaped to Annaba" (Suggest: "Annaba (Bône)" - I had no idea where Annaba was, but I know that Bône is located in North Africa.)  Done
  • Added.
• Construction and career, paragraph 4: "no longer he need" (Fix: no longer the need)  Done
  • Fuxed.
• References: I do not see a Frievogel citation. (Suggest: If it is relevant, please move to Further reading section. Otherwise remove it.)  Done
  • Removed.
• General: Well-written, verifiable, broad coverage, neutral, stable, illustrated.  Done

@Djmaschek: Thank you for your excellent review. I believe that the changes have been made.19:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Nice work. GA class. Even though you pinged me, I somehow never got a note, or I overlooked it. Djmaschek (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]