# Talk:HMS Nepean (1916)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Nepean (1916)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dumelow (talk · contribs) 10:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to review this one - Dumelow (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Review completed and comments made below - Dumelow (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses below, looks good and I will pass this for GA - Dumelow (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)


### 1. Well-written
Criteria: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;  and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Design and development
Consider adding some context at the start of this section.  Eg. mention the First World War and why did the Royal Navy need more destroyers
Added.
"Nepean was one of the sixteen Admiralty M-class destroyers ordered by the British Admiralty in September 1914 as part of the First War Programme."
Our article on the Admiralty M-class destroyer says she was one of nine destroyers of the second war programme ordered in November.  Would be good to clear this up.
It is. Cited.
Consider mentioning the speed of the destroyers already in service with the RN and German Navy for comparison.
There is
"Power was provided by three Yarrow boilers feeding Brown-Curtiss rated at 23,000 shaft horsepower (17,000 kW), driving three shafts and exhausting through three funnels."
Is there a word missing after "Brown-Curtiss"?  Turbines?
Added.
"The anti-aircraft guns were later replaced by 2-pdr 40 mm (1.6 in) "pom-pom" guns."
Don't suppose we know the date?
Edited as the November ships had the 2-pdr.
I thought it might be worth mentioning how far through her sub-class she was when completed, eg. "the second of the sixteen vessels in her sub-class to be completed/commissioned/whatever"
The M class is quite confusing so I have added some context.
Construction and career
"Nepean was laid down by John I. Thornycroft & Company at their yard in Woolston, Southampton in February 1915, was launched on 22 January the following year and was completed three months later in March"
I would omit "three months later", which would be April anyway
Removed.
"The destroyer was the second vessel in the Royal Navy to be named after Sir Evan Nepean, and the first not to be in Australian service"
Presumably the first was HMVS Nepean?  I don't know much about the subject but was the Royal Australian Navy considered part of the Royal Navy then?
Absolutely.
" On 30 May, Nepean was the only member of the flotilla not to sail with the Grand Fleet to confront the German High Seas Fleet in what would be the Battle of Jutland"
Do we know why?
The source simply says that the destroyer was the only one left in port.
"On 30 April 1917, the destroyer was the target of a torpedo launched by the German submarine UC-77.[16] It missed"
I would avoid a two-word sentence
Merged.
Do we know where this happened?
"During the attack, the destroyer had identified a torpedo attack from German submarines"
I would clarify which destroyer this was, I assumed Nepean at first reading but might also be Obdurate which was the last vessel mentioned
"On 16 October, the destroyer joined with 53 other destroyers and 27 lights cruisers in an unsuccessful search for an escorted German minelayer."
I would name "Nepean" here as the last destroyer named was Obdurate
Clarified.
Typo on "lights"
Fixed.
"Nepean did not take part in the subsequent Second Battle of Heligoland Bight, which involved large numbers of ships from both sides."
Again, do we know why?
Amended.
"At the end of the war, Nepean was part of the Fourth Destroyer Flotilla based at Devonport."
Probably worth specifying "in November 1918" here
Amended.
Pennant numbers
I had in my head that these were "pendant numbers" during the world wars?
The two seem to be both used in the literature.
Lead
"The M class was an improvement on those of the preceding L class, capable of higher speed"
The way this is written it isn't clear whether the "capable of higher speed" refers to the M or L class.
Amended.
"In 1917, Nepean formed part of the escort for the light cruisers Dublin and Sydney when they were attacked by the Zeppelin L 43 and the First Battlecruiser Squadron during the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight."
This could be construed that the Dublin and Sydney were attacked by the zeppelin and squadron during the battle.
Clarified.


### 2. Verifiable with no original research
Criteria: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Newbolt (1928) and Poolman (1985) are listed in the Bibliography but not cited in the article
Amended.
The links for the two Naval Staff Monographs don't work, for me at least
Added archive links.
I don't have access to many of the sources but I confirmed the following:
Presence in the 13th flotilla by April 1916 per Navy List
"The flotilla was based at the naval base in Rosyth. On 30 May, Nepean was the only member of the flotilla not to sail with the Grand Fleet to confront the German High Seas Fleet in what would be the Battle of Jutland.[15]" From Corbett 1920, p. 430. I confirmed she is the only one listed noted as "remained in harbour" but five others are shown as members of the flotilla and did not sail as they were "in dockyard hands".  Also no mention that Rosyth was their base.
Cited.
"On 16 October, the destroyer joined with 53 other destroyers and 27 lights cruisers in an unsuccessful search for an escorted German minelayer" checks out to  Newbolt 1931, but should probably be "pp. 151-152" as Nepean is only mentioned on p152.
Amended.
"During the following month, from 16 November, the destroyer formed part of the escort for the First Battlecruiser Squadron, led by Lion, which left Rosyth to attack German minesweepers" likewise should probably be "pp. 168-169"
Amended.
"Nepean did not take part in the subsequent Second Battle of Heligoland Bight, which involved large numbers of ships from both sides" I am not sure how I am to use Newbolt 1931, p. 176 to verify this?
"At the end of the war, Nepean was part of the Fourth Destroyer Flotilla based at Devonport." checks out to the October Navy List.  I would maybe go with "in the last months of the war", rather than "end of the war"
Amended.
Apart from my comments above everything looks to be cited inline throughout
I didn't pick up on any overly close paraphrasing during my spotchecks and Earwig looks fine


### 3. Broad in its coverage
Criteria: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Looks to cover all aspects ofa  relatively short career in an appropriate level of detail


### 4. Neutral
Criteria: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
I found no issues with WP:NPOV


### 5. Stable
Criteria: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
No significant changes from the version of the article created in June 2023


### 6. Illustrated
Criteria: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Use of a sister ship image is OK if no image of this ship is available; I assume Orpheus of the same batch/visually similar?
The latter.
The license for File:HMS Orpheus H28 (1916) RMG N02472.jpg notes it was taken by a serving member of the Royal Navy and so is out of Crown Copyright.  The linked image source to the Royal Museums Greenwich only states "unknown" artist, can we demonstrate that this was taken by the navy?
I feel that it is reasonable to make that deduction and that "it is a photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957".
@Dumelow: Thank you for a thorough review. Please take a look at my changes and tell me if there is anything else you would like to see. simongraham (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)