Talk:HMS Unity (1913)

HMS Unity (1913) 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: December 4, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Maritime / British / European

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

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

Passed by reviewer RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Unity (1913)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 09:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk · contribs) 11:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship: Entirely Simongraham's work (NB: Didn't notice this was the second of Simon's works I'd reviewed in a row until I'd finished with the source checks, interesting range of articles!)

Source check:

Usually in reviews I prefer to use Veracity to generate a list, but the number of book references doesn't lend itself to that format well. Still, from the references I was able to find local copies of, no issues to report, so I'm happy to give this a pass.

Criteria assessment:

Criteria	Sub criteria	Comment
1. Well written	a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct	Prose is understandable, even to someone without much experience in the area like myself. The design section is perhaps a little dry but not overly so and I'm not really sure there's a good way of making a design spec exciting.
1. Well written	b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation	Follows WP:MOS for the level expected for GAN. Only issue I spotted was the part which begins with "In order to counter German minelayers..." ; the sentence there runs into excessive citations. I do believe these are all relevant, but could these be better collated, or the sentence rewritten?
2. Verifiable with no original research	a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline	All references are well formatted and in the way I'd expect for mostly book sources.
	b. 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)	Well sourced, nothing that could be reasonably challenged is without a source.
	c. it contains no original research	Nothing there felt like original sources, all statements seem to be backed up by references. For the scope of the article's focus, the amount of sources is more than varied enough.
	d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism	Copyvio scores the article at 5.7%. My own searching didn't either yield anything either.
3. Broad in its coverage	a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic	Covers the aspects I'd expect to see on an article about a 1910s warboat, and is similar to depth that other GAN military ships cover.
3. Broad in its coverage	b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)	Nothing stood out as unnecessary to me.
4. Neutral		No obvious bias.
5. Stable		Nearly entirely a one man job.
6. Illustrated where appropriate	a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content	One image, with suitable public domain reasoning.
6. Illustrated where appropriate	b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions	It's an image of the ship for the infobox. Not much to say there. No caption needed because it's for the infobox.

Source Check

See above

Summary:

While a short read, it was a good one, and since 1910s destroyers aren't exactly the most well known of areas I wouldn't really expect any more than what's here. It's just the one issue with the citation I mentioned above I think needs looking into, but otherwise this is ready to be approved.

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: Thank you for another clear review. Your helpful comment on the citations is very valid. I have reduced this as I feel two sources were providing support that is self-evident given the others. Please tell me if you spot anything else. simongraham (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Simon, happy to approve!RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.