Talk:HMS Myngs (1914)

HMS Myngs (1914) 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: February 12, 2023. (Reviewed version).

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Myngs (1914)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 05:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Zawed. I look forward to your comments. simongraham (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The M class were an improvement on the preceding L class...: suggest either "The M class ships were an improvement on those of the preceding L class..."
- Added.
Should the hyphen be present on all instances of "M class" & "L class"?
- I have tried to follow Template:Sclass in using the hyphen for the adjectival form and without for the noun.

Design and development

...the greater performance was appreciated...: suggest, for greater specificity, "the greater performance of the M-class was appreciated".
- Changed.
a length of 265 ft (80.8 m) : the conversion in "m" doesn't match what is in the infobox
- Fixed the infobox so it is consistent.
Referring to speed, those in the infobox go to the first decimal point.
- Similarly fixed.
Mystic had a main armament ...: Mystic?
- Oops. I updated the sentence from the GA review of the other destroyer but forgot to change the name. Fixed.

Construction and career

By the following month, the routine developed...: suggest "a routine"
- Changed.
...unsuccessful search for the German minelaying...: suggest "a German"
- Changed.

Other stuff

Sources look reliable, no spotchecks done as nominator has excellent history
Monograph 33 is listed as a source but doesn't seem to be cited
- Good spot. I have added the relevant sentence.
No dupe links
Image tags OK.

Looks in fine shape, only minor issues found. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thank you for another very helpful review. I believe I have made all the changes. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look fine, so am passing as GA now as I believe the article meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]