Talk:HNLMS De Ruyter (1935)

HNLMS De Ruyter (1935) 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: April 27, 2025. (Reviewed version).

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Military history: Maritime / Dutch / European / World War II

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
	Dutch military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands

Shipwrecks Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Redirects

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

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

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)[reply]

Reviewer: Jordano53 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will start review later this week! Jordano^5³ 16:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this one got away from me. Reviewing now. Jordano^5³ 19:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC: Review is complete! Jordano^5³ 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Nevermind, I see the issue. I would be compeltly blind if you did not mention it! GGOTCC 21:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They contradict each other. The measurements in the infobox have different decimals than the ones in the prose. Jordano^5³ 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordano53 Thanks! Have I fixed all of the issues? GGOTCC 00:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC: I still see 170.9 in the infobox and 170.8 in the prose. Jordano^5³ 05:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordano53~~I swear I changed that twice.~~ Thanks! GGOTCC 05:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans- should be good to pass now. Jordano^5³ 05:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appologies for the back and forth. I've been sleep deprived all week, hence my blindness. Cheers! GGOTCC 05:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Should the first instance of ABDA be written out in the lead? Just about all general characteristics are all different between the infobox and prose Further objections emerged through an essay contest... What were the details of this essay contest? Who organized it and when was it held? ...provided an opportunity for a lucky shot to destroy them all... Could be entirely nitpicky, but is there a more academic way to phrase this? Should we standardize usage of ABDA versus ABDACOM?
	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!