Talk:HMS Manchester (15)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Manchester (15). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091215052922/http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/360122/sleeping_giant.html to http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/360122/sleeping_giant.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Manchester (15)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 03:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Prose  On hold

2. Verifiability  On hold

3. Depth of Coverage  Likely

4. Neutral ✓ Pass

5. Stable ✓ Pass

6. Illustrations ✓ Pass

7. Miscellaneous ✓ Pass

Comments

1.

• "In late December Manchester began conducting patrols" - Not 100% for sure, but part of me thinks there should be a comma after December.
  • It's optional; I generally don't unless the prefatory phrase is longer.
• "In November the cruiser was tasked to escort" - Same as above, what do you think about the comma? My comma usage is my weakest point in grammar
• "and 1 who drowned as the crew abandoned ship" - Spell out one per MOS:NUMERALS
  • Scroll down to the Notes and exceptions section and you'll see a bullet that states: "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently"
• Infobox gives 32 knots, prose gives 32.6. Wouldn't it be better to give the exact figure in the infobx? Or round to 33 since it's closer than 32?
  • I use the lesser of the designed or the trials speed in the infobox since in-service speeds generally never match trials speeds.
• Link Degaussing
• Probably don't need to link Norway per MOS:OVERLINK
  • You have more faith in the average readers geographical literacy than I do.
• "The detonation killed 3 officers and 23 ratings from Manchester's crew and 5 officers and 7 other ranks" - Spell out the single-digit numbers per MOS:NUMERALS
• "Temporary repairs were took until 15 September when the ship then sailed for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" - Given that the previous action is all in Europe, I'd recommend "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States" for clarity
  • Reworded that bit.
• "Two other men were rescued by an Italian MTB, but they were ultimately turned over to the French and joined them in the Laghouat prison camp" - who is "them"? The only way I can make this make sense is if the two men were turned over to the French, and then the French and the two men put in Laghouat, which isn't correct.

2.

• The flying boats and catapult don't seem to be mentioned in the prose, so they need either mentioned in the prose or cited in the infobox
  • Ooops.

3.

• Do the sources give any indication as to why the range is casualties is so high? 11 vs. 132 is a big difference.
  • Sadly, none.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Placing on hold, mostly just minor prose comments. Hog Farm (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)