Talk:King Edward VII-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 00:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass External links, dup links and dab links look good. Copyvio detector returns green.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Ref 26 backs up what is cited in the text. Other offline references accepted in good faith.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   • Are there any characteristics from these boats that were specifically improved upon in subsequent classes?

   • Added a couple of lines on this - in short, no, the Lord Nelsons were an entirely new design

   • Would think a unit cost would be useful on this article, though as I mentioned in the individual ship articles, that can be something hard to find.

   • As I said in the ship reviews you did, I don't generally like including this information based on the inflation problem.

   • "The reason multiple boiler arrangements were adopted was to compare the effectiveness of different boiler types." -- Which configuration was deemed most successful?

   • Curiously, Burt doesn't say, apart from that the mixed arrangement in general was unsatisfactory.

   • Seeing the convert template used in some places but not others; should be consistent (ie, armour section: "The armoured deck was 2 in of mild steel, apart from the central portion of the hull, where it was reduced to 1 in (25 mm)..")

   • Each measurement is converted on first use and not thereafter - the 2" one is converted in the previous paragraph

   • Might seem clear, but perhaps worth adding a note for the ships' naming scheme or why it was decided to name them in this fashion.

   • Added a bit on this.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Seven images all tagged PD as appropriate.

7. Other:

   On Hold Nothing major, just holding for some clarifications.

   Thanks again Ed! Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated! With all this done, I think I've got what I need. Going to Pass the GAN now. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 22:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)