Talk:HMS Noble (1915)/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Will take a look at this. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Prelim

• Dreadnought battleship is a duplicated link
  • Removed.
• Article is stable
• Image is correctly licensed
• Earwig reports copyvio unlikely

Lede and infobox

• Nisus does not need to be bolded, there isn't a link to the article under that name
  • There is a redirect from HMS Nisus (1915).
• Displacement is 948 in main text but 1,026 in infobox
  • Reconciled and sourced.

Design and development

• L-class does not need the hyphen
  • Removed.
• "valued by the navy" suggest linking Royal Navy here
  • Linked.
• What differs between the M class and the Repeat M class?
  • Added a
• Our class article does not list Noble as a Repeat?
  • True. Friedman lists the entire Third War Programme under his Repeat M list so the class article needs updating.

Construction and career

• "Nisus was laid down..." the name Nisus is not mention in the preceding section which makes it confusing to start like this without any context, suggest rejigging the sentence slightly
  • Reworded.
• "to escorting convoys" > "to escort convoys"
  • Edited.
• The lede says Noble formed part of the battleship screen during Heligoland, but main text just says she saw no action
  • Clarified.
• Was the Third Destroyer Flotilla also at Scapa?
  • The sources are not explicit, but it seems likely as it was reformed in March 1918 specifically for service with the Grand Fleet.

References

• References look good, AGF for print sources.
• A check of available sources suggests that the article has good coverage and nothing major has been missed.
  • Thank you.

@Simongraham: Hi, that's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you for your excellent review. You raise some valid points about other pages that are linked from this article, but in the meantime I believe the issues you have made have been addressed. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Passing this article as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)