Talk:HNLMS De Ruyter (1935)
![]() | HNLMS De Ruyter (1935) is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by GGOTCC (talk) at 17:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. Short description: Dutch light cruiser (1935–1942) |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HNLMS De Ruyter (1935) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Redirects
[edit]The link to the list of ships of this name seems to send me back to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulinSaudi (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 December 2004
Question
[edit]This passage:
"However, due to the cost-cutting policy that went into her design, De Ruyter was not quite up to her task. Her main battery (7 × 150 mm guns) was underpowered in comparison to other light cruisers of the time (for example the British Leander class), and the class had inadequate armour as well and lacked long range anti-aircraft guns. However, her fire control system was excellent."
This seems unnecessarily belittling. She has one main gun less than a Leander which is a thousand tons heavier and one main gun more than an Arethusa which is a thousand tons lighter. Both classes receive glowing articles on this wiki. She can't be called undergunned.
GA review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:HNLMS De Ruyter (1935)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 17:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jordano53 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Will start review later this week! Jordano53 16:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, this one got away from me. Reviewing now. Jordano53 19:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @GGOTCC: Review is complete! Jordano53 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Jordano53 Thank you very much for the copyedits, I really appreaciate it! I'll incorperate your feedback now. GGOTCC 21:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Jordano53 I (think) I addressed all other concerns, but may you elaborate on the diffrences between the infobox on prose? Is the issue that they contradict eachother, or are written diffrently? GGOTCC 21:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I see the issue. I would be compeltly blind if you did not mention it! GGOTCC 21:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- They contradict each other. The measurements in the infobox have different decimals than the ones in the prose. Jordano53 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Jordano53 Thanks! Have I fixed all of the issues? GGOTCC 00:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Jordano53 I (think) I addressed all other concerns, but may you elaborate on the diffrences between the infobox on prose? Is the issue that they contradict eachother, or are written diffrently? GGOTCC 21:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Jordano53 Thank you very much for the copyedits, I really appreaciate it! I'll incorperate your feedback now. GGOTCC 21:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @GGOTCC: Review is complete! Jordano53 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Upon my spot check (Whitley + BBC + Online news sources), there seems to be no issue here. Faithfully replicated. Made some small adjustments to cite template params |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig is happy. No violations as far as I can tell. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I see no concerns here- covers the background behind the construction of the ship, the description of her, her history, as well as modern-day wreckage info |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Super strong article. Just a few adjustments and it will be good to go! |
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- B-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- C-Class Dutch military history articles
- Dutch military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- B-Class Netherlands articles
- All WikiProject Netherlands pages
- B-Class Shipwreck articles
- Low-importance Shipwreck articles